ECHIXOIDKA. II. 



39 



to refer them all to the high form. Only in case all the species of \-. Phelsnm weie beyond doiibt 

 of the higli form, wonld it be necessary to cJiange the names Echinocyamus and Fibiilaria; but this 

 is so far from being the case that perhaps they all realh' belong to the flat form. Accordingly it 

 wonld not only be a very unfortunate thing to change the names Ecltiiiocyanuis and Fibiilaria, but it 

 would even be wrong and contrarv to the rules of priority to do so. It may be considered as certain 

 that Er/iiiiocyai/nis f'its/lln.'; is among the species of \an Phelsum, since some of his specimens 

 canie from the Adriatic, and if Lambert is right — as I think lie is — in regarding all the 14 

 species of Ecliiiiocydiiius figured bv van Phelsum as one species onh', they are all Echinocyamus 

 piisi/liis. I agree that from the three last colnnms of the piates in van Phelsum "s old book and — 

 perhaps — from some of the descriptions it niight seem to be the high form which is represented; 

 but the two first colnnms in an\- case resemble much better the flat form, and above all the locali- 

 ties given b\ van Phelsum prove definiteh' that the>' cannot represent the high form, because only 

 Hat forms occur in the .\driatic and at America. It is theu onh' the bad drawing which niakes the 

 figures in the three last columns (sidewiew, endview and from below) look like the high form. But to 

 ascribe such importance to some evidently quite impossible figures as to found thereupon a most 

 nnhappy change of names universally used, against the (in this case) quite certain deduction from the 

 localities, seems to nu- unjustifiable, and I nnist protest against such a proceeding with all my force. 



Subordei Meridosternata. 

 Fam. Urechinidæ. 



19. Urechinus naresianus A. Ag. 



PI. VI. Figs. 10—11. PI. VII. I''igs. 6, S, ij, 15. PI. IX. Fig,s. 4, S-9, 15—16, iS. 21. 26, 29-39. 



A. Agassiz: Challenger -Echinoidea. p. 146. PI. XXIX. Fig.s. i — 4. PI. XXX. XXX a. P'igs. 1-4. 

 PI. XXXIX. Figs. 29— 30. PL XL. Fig.s. 56— 58. — Blake -Fkhinoidea. p. 52. PI. XXVI. 1—3. — Panamic 

 Deep-Sea Echini. p. 156. PI. 58. 5. 60.4—5. 74-6 — 8. — Loven: On Pourtalcsia. p. 90. PL VIII. 56. PL 

 XXI. — Duncau: Revision of the genera of Echinoidea (132) p. 211 — 12. — Bell: Echinoderma found 

 off the Coast of vSouth Africa. I. Echinoidea. (Marine Investigations in South Africa. III. 1904.) p. 173. 



The structure of the test of this highly interesting Echinoid has been so well worked out by 

 Agassiz and Loven that very little can be added in this rcspect. I onlv wish to call attention to 

 the faet that the inner edge of the piates ronnd the peristome is somewhat thickened (Fig. 3) as 

 pointed out for 6Wfr///««.s' by Agassiz. (Comp. e. g. PL 78. 5. Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.) The irregularity 

 in the specimen figured PL VI. Fig. 10, the plate II. b. 3 liaving two pores, 4 none, is wortli noticing, 

 though, of course, only an individnal abnormalitw 



The rich niaterial from tlie Ingolf iucludes some \oung specimens, so that I am able to give 

 some information of the changes due to growth in this species. 



The yonngest specimen taken by the Ingolf is 3'"'" in length. Unfortunately it is impos.sible 

 to find out the relations of the apical system in this small specimen; on account of its e.xtreme frag- 

 ility I have been unable to remove the spines completely without destroving the test, and I have not 



