1,2 ECHINOIDEA. II. 



The two iisual forms of tridentate pedicellariæ have beeii found in this specimen. The slender 

 form is essentially like that of piirpiircus, but only small specimens were fomid, so it cannot be taken 

 for certain that the larger ones are also alike to those of purpureiis. The short form of tridentate 

 pedicellariæ (PI. XVI. Fig^. ii) has a remarkably small blade, with the edge very faintly serrate (only 

 to be seen in side view); the upper edge of the basal part is generally a little serrate as in Raschi, 

 and there may be some irregular prominences from the lower side of the articular surface. Small 

 specimens of this form have the blade coraparatively larger (PL XVI. Fig. 19). Specimens with elongate 

 valves I have not seen, and neither were ophicephalous pedicellariæ found. The triphyllons pedicellariæ 

 are like those of the other species. — Spines, tube-feet and spicules do not seem to present charac- 

 acteristic differences from the other species. (No spines are preserved on the actinal plastron). — The 

 locality of this specimen is given as «China Sea> (Salmin). 



One more recent species is referred to the genus Spatangus, viz. 5". {Loncophonis) intcrruptus 

 described by Studer (386). I have examined the type specimen in the Berlin-Museum and can state 

 that it is no Spatangus at all. To what genus it belongs I do not venture to say definitely for 

 the present. 



Lambert in his <sDescription des Échinides fossiles de la province de Barcelone> (j\Iém. Soc. 

 Géol. de France. IX. 1902. p. 54 — 55) ' has called attention to the faet that the genus Spatangus in its 

 present conception is not the same as Klein's Spatangjis, which is characterized as having deepened 

 ambulacra l-insignem habentes lacunam in dorso, sulcosque in vertice ). He tlien proposes to change 

 the name of the present genus Spatangus into Prospatangus, and — if I understand him rightly — to 

 make Schizaster canaliferiis the type of the genus Spatangus Klein. It does not seem to me necessary 

 thus to change the name into Prospatangus (Leske \\\\\\?,€\.i\uc\\x&.^?, Spatangus purpur eus in Klein's 

 genus Spatangus\ though Lambert, is probably right that the present use of the name Spatangus 

 ^repose sur une erreur^^, and especially I would find it extremely unfortunate to give the name Spa- 

 tangus to Schizaster. It would not fail to create an extreme confusion, and — as far as I can see — 

 the rules of nomenclature do not at all necessitate this unfortunate changing of the names. 



30. Echinocardium fiavescens (O. Fr. Muller). 



PI. II. Figs. 2, 10. PI. XVI. Fig.26. PI. XVII. Figs. 4, 7—8, 10— 11, 17, 27, 31, 40-41, 45, 50. 



Principal synonyms: Spatangus ovatus Leske. 



A7nphidetus ovatus (Agass.). 

 Echinocardiuvi ovatuni (Gray). 

 Amphidetus roscus Forbes (?) 



Principal Literature: O. Fr. Aliiller; Prodromus Zool. Dan. 1776. p. 236. — (Non: Zoologia Da- 

 nica (Abildgaard). III. p. 17. Tab. XCI. 4.') — Leske: Additam. ad J. Th. Kleinii. Nat. Disp. Echinod. 

 p. 252. Tab. 49. 12—13. — Forbes: Brit. Starfishes. p. 194. — L. Agassiz & Desor: Cat. raisonné des 



■ Comp. also Lambert: Etude sur les Échinides de la Molasse de Vence. Ann. soc. des Alpes Maritimes. XX. 

 1906. p. 48. 



2 See: Diiben & Koren: Skaud. Ech. p. 2S3 — 4. 



