38 



p;CHINOIDEA. II. 



the scrobicular area. Miliary tnbercles are scarce, the priinar\- ones leaving but little room for theni. 

 — Perhaps these curious small speciniens represent merely an indi\idual abnornialitx-; from the few 

 small naked tests to band it is impossible to decide the question. 



In his Note sur le orenre Échinocyamus ' Lamliert calls attention to tlie faet that the 

 species figured under the name of Échinocyamus b\' van Phelsum' are not of the flat form to 

 which the name is now applied, but of the high form which is designated b\- the name Fibularid 

 Lamarck. Accordingly these two names should be exchanged and used in a way contrar\- to what 

 has for so ver>- long been the general use. Pour rejeter mes conclusions il faudrait å la fois attribuer 

 seulement a Leske, et malgré lui, la paternité du genre Echinoc\amus, prendre pour type de ce genre 

 une forme que le savant commentateur de Klein n'\- rattachait que d'une facon accessoire et exclure 

 du genre Fibularia la seule espéce authentique que Lamarck y ait placée. Triple resultat qui ine 

 parait inadmissible. (Op. cit). Cotteau^ objects thereto that, since the specimens of v. Phelsum 

 had been collected in America and the Adriatic Gulf, flat forms must have been among his species , 

 as les Fibularia, propres å la mer des ludes, n'ont jamais été rencontrés sur les cotes de l'Amérique 

 et encore moins dans le golfe Adriatique, ou abondent les Échinocyamus . Further, the figures given 

 b\- V. Phelsum laissent assurément å désirer; dans le grossissement elles sont pour la plupart ren- 

 flées d'une maniére exagérée«. — «Autant il nous jjarait nécessaire, lorsque les faits sont positifs et 

 indiscutables, de revenir au priucipe de l'antériorité, qui doit toujours étre respecté, autant il serait 

 dangereux, quand la question est douteuse et sujette å controverse, d'adopter des modifications qui 

 n'auraient d'autre resultat que d'apporter une grande perturbation dans la nomenclature et de compliquer 

 la synonyniie . Also de Loriolt agrees with Cotteati in this question, and I for my part cannot 

 see, but that Cotteau and de Loriol are right. The figures of v. Phelsum are, indeed, so bad and 

 quite unlike either the flat or the high form, that they seem to me quite insufficient to support 

 such an extremely unhappy change of names. The faet that some of his specimens came from the 

 Adriatic is a proof that the flat form was among his species , and some of the figures also seem to 

 represent this flat form. The figures in the two first columns are indeed, in m\' opinion, much more 

 like the flat forms (except the two first figures, which are, however, still less like the elongated Fihii- 

 larta-iorms); those in the third colunm (side \'iews) are somewhat more like the high form, though 

 always very badly representing the true shape of the test of the high forms; the figures of the end- 

 views of all his 14 species are so very much alike that it would be impossible to point out which belong 

 to the flat and which to the high form. Lambert, indeed, thinks that all his figures represent onl\- 

 fourteen scarcely different specimens of a single sjjecies. After all it seems to me that the only thing 

 which is certain in this question is, that the flat form is represented among \an Phelsums species, 

 and being from the Adriatic Sea las \an Phelsum himself states p. 36) it must even be Échinocya- 

 mus pusillus, the only species found there. Whether the high form is realh' represented by any of his 

 «species; must remain doubtful, though by a mere glance at his figures one miglit at first be induced 



■ Bull. Soc. géol. de France. 3 Sér. XIX. 1891. p. 749. 



- Brief aan Cornelius Nozeniaii over de gewelw-slekken of Zee-Bgeln. 1774. 

 j Paléontologie Francaise. Terrain Tertiaire. II. Échinides. 1894. p. 349. 

 4 Notes pour servir å l'étude des Échinoderme.s. V. 1897. p. S. 



