ECHINOIDEA. II. 



as possible all the structures kiiown to be ofclassificatory importance, and Professor Ag as s i/, vvill, I hope, 

 recognize that T have done my dnty in this respect. If I have characterised some new species niainh 

 by the strnctnre of their pedicellariæ, tliis is dne to the faet that the speciniens, being in the posses- 

 sion of foreign musenms, were not at my fnll disposal. Moreover, I have established snch new species 

 only when convinced of ha\ing made known sufficient characters for their certain recognition. It does, 

 however, seeni to me tliat any method which enables one to determine tlic species of a rare specimen 

 without destroying or damaging it, is to be welcomed. Sucli a niotJKxl is preseuted in nian\- cases, 

 though certainh nol in all, b> the study of the pedicellariæ; if by adopting this nietliod w e eau jjre- 

 serve some beautiful or rare specimen undamaged in a Mnseum, siueh- the destruction of snch a s])eci- 

 men wonld be regrettable. Hence I have cited with approbation the remark of Stewart: that wc 

 ma\' be enabled by the examination of even an ambulacral tube or pedicellaria etc. to determine a 

 species withont denudation of portions of the corona, which is sometimes not desirable . Apart from 

 this, even Professor Agassiz will agree, snrel\-, that one ma\ lament the loss of type-specimens 

 of several of the insnfficiently described species of older anthors withont being stigmatised as childish ; 

 bnt I have ne\er lamented the loss of specimens dne to the necessarx examination of the test; indeed 

 I fail to see, why the removal of a few spines from the test shonld involve the loss of the specimen. 

 Possibly Professor Agassiz has mterpreted ni)- occasional use of the word destroy to mean loss, though 

 ni)- intention was to alhide only to the destruction of the beautifid appearance of the specimens. — 

 For the rest, I niay refer to the remarks of Professor Doderlein (Op. cit. p. 70) on this question, with 

 which I fully agi'ee, denn(anch| ich stehe auf dem Standpunkt, dass ich nur dann eine Art als geniigend 

 gekennzeichnet ansehe, wenn die alte Methode, die Be-schreibung von Schale n. s. w. \ereinigt ist mit 

 der nenen Methode der Beschreibung der Pedicellarien u. s. w. 



I now come to the gravest accusation bronght against me by Professor Agassiz, that of gratui- 

 tous misrepresentation of facts>. On p. 25 (Op. cit.) Professor Agassiz .says: Dr. Mortensen uanies as 

 Dorocidaris micans specimens of a Cidaris which he received from the U. S. National Musemn, Washing- 

 ton, labelled as Porocidaris Sliarrcri (<;Albatross> 1885. St. 2415) and also from the l^. S. Plsh Commis- 

 sion (^Albatross 1885. St. 2345) under the same name. I beg to call Dr. Mortenseu's attention to the 

 faet that the publication of the «Blake Echini dates back to 1883, and that I was in no wa\- con- 

 cerned in making the coUection of the Albatross in 1885, or with the identification of the Echinoids 

 then collected. Dr. Mortenseu's statements («Ingolf Echinoidea. pp. 22, 23) in regard to Porocidaris 

 Sharreri are gratuitous misrepresentations of facts . — My remarks on Porocidaris Sliarreri nui thus 

 (loc. cit.): Agassiz unfortnnately gives no details as to the pedicellariæ, and from the figure (op. cit. 

 PI. III) it cannot be decided whether it is a genuine Porocidaris. There seenis to be no highly deve- 

 loped neck on the spines (in the text nothing is said of this feature); the pedicellariæ might well look 

 like those of P. purpurata, bnt a close examination will be necessar\- for the decision. B\ the kindness 

 of Prof. Rathbun I have from (the) U. S. National Mnseum received a sijecimeu determined as 

 P. Sharreri («Albatross» 1875. St. 2415); it proved to be the new species Strrrocidaris ingol/iaini de- 

 scribed hereafter; it has no relation to P. Sharreri. Further I have in (the) British Museum seeu a speci- 

 men determined as /-". Sharreri, from the U. S. Fish Commission (^Albatross- 1885. St. 2345). Neither 

 seems this .specimen to be ideutical with the real, figured P. Sharreri, at all events it does not to 



The Ingolf-Kxpedition. IV. .:. 2 



