lyg ECHINOIDEA. II. 



IViorviosoiiia placenta W. Tli. In tlie <Ecliiiioidea d. deutscheu Tiefsee-Expeditioii > (p. 126—28) 

 Doderlein points ont that tlie specimens of Phormosoma placenta from the Davis Strait as well as 

 that fignred in the < Blake-^-Echinoidea differ from the specimens from the European side of the 

 Atlantic, in having fewer abactinai piates in the ambulacra and interambulacra; in the European form, 

 the typical placenta, there are 10 — 11 interambulacral and 14 — 16 ambulacral piates in each series, in 

 the specimens from the Davis Strait there are only 7—8 interambulacral and 9—10 ambulacral piates. 

 The latter form is thus maintained as a distinct species, Ph. sigsbei A. Ag., though it is suggested that 

 on examination of a richer material it will, together with the £species» from the Indian Ocean: Pli. 

 adenicuni, indicuvi and bursarmvi, prove to be only a variety of Ph. placenta. This suggestion is no 

 doubt correct, as regards P/i. sigsbei at least. Several specimens before me from the Faroe Channel 

 (»Michael Sars» 1902) as well as some from the fiThor> are quite intermediate as regards the nuniber 

 of abactinai piates, so that it is impossible to decide thereby to which form they should be referred. 



I give liere some instances. The tridentate pedicellariæ in these 

 Number of abactinai piates specimens, however, are of the slender form, the character derived 



from the form of these pedicellariæ, viz. narrow in the typical pla- 

 centa, broad in sigsbei (comp. PI. XII. Pigs. 2 — 3 and 7 of the Parti) 

 thus apparently being more constant. To distinguish Pli. Sigsbei 

 as a separate species from placenta seems tlien scarcely justified, 

 but it may be correct to maintain it as a variety besides the typical 

 form of Pli. placenta, the latter belonging to the European side of the Atlantic, the var. sigsbei to the 

 American side, from the Davis Strait to the West Indies. 



Mr. R. T.Jackson has cailed my attention to the faet that in the figure of a young Phormo- 

 soma placenta given in the Siam-Echiuoidea I. (p. 54) the teeth are represented as situated in the 

 ambulacra. I take the occasion liere to correct the error, which I can scarcely account for. The teeth 

 are distinctly interambulacral also in tlie smallest specimens, as might, of course, be expected. 



Hypsiechinus coronatus Mrtsn. Mr. R. T. Jackson likewise suggests to me that the plate 

 outside the buccal piates, between the terminal i^lates, shown in PI. VII. Fig. 6 of Part I ought not to 

 be interpreted as the basal (genital) plate as I have done (p. 89), but as the first interambulacral plate. 

 Mr. Jackson is right in this suggestion. I have examined the specimen figured there and find that 

 the genital piates are also present, and easily discernible, when exainining the specimen from the 

 abactinai side, so there is no excuse for the error. 



Echinus gracilis. In the «Echinoderms of Ballynakill and Bofin Harbours, Co. Galway and of 

 the Deep water off the West Coast of Ireland« by Stanley W. Kemp (Ann. Rep. Fish., Ireland. 

 1902—3. Pt. II. App. VI. 1905) is named (p. 199) v.Echinns gracilis (Diib. and Kor.). > As Diiben and 

 Ko ren have described no Echinus gracilis and the Ech. gracilis A. Ag. was hitherto known only from 

 the American side of the Atlantic, I wrote to Mr. vStanley Kemp about the matter, and he informed 

 me that it was an error for Ech. elegans Diib. Kor. I take the occasion to correct the error here to 

 prevent introducing in literature Ech. gracilis as occurring on the European side of the Atlantic. 



Echinus esculentus L. Tlie variety of this species mentioned in Part I. p. 162, and further 

 mentioned by Appel lof (Havbundens Dyreliv. Norges Fiskerier. I. Norsk Havfiske, i. Del. Havforsk- 



