ECHINOIDEA. II. 



175 



tlie other has it ■ en anneau appeiidiciilé par deux branches latérales ■, viz. the anal branches. Now 

 these anal fascioles are of vers- miconstant character, as repeatedly pointed out above — (they mav 

 also occnr in the true Br. lyn/cra), and it is evidently inipossible to ascribe to tliem any great 

 systematic importance. Bnt then it follows that both Toxobrissns and Klcinia are synonyms only of 

 Brissopsis in its original meaning. If \ve have to subdivide the genus Brissopsis in its wide meaning, 

 it must then be as follows: 



Subgenus Brissopsis s. str. (S}'n. Toxobrissns, Klcinia.) Tj'pe Br. clcgaits; Br. luzouica. atlantica, Old- 

 Jiaiiii, circosciiiifa. 

 — Brissoiiia. Type Br. lyrifcra ; Br. alfa, coliivibaris. 



Further Br. pacifica and clongata would make a separate subgenus, and perhaps one more 

 separate subgenus would have to be established for the new species mentioned above, in which the 

 first of the piates included within the subanal fasciole is the yth as in pacifica and clongata. How- 

 ever, as pointed out above (p. 168), it seems to me the most natural thing to keep them all together 

 in one genus on account of the peculiar intermingling of all the more important characters. 



Lambert further includes under Brissopsis as subgenera: Plcsiastcr Pomel and Diplodctus 

 Schliiter, which have the apex ethmophract. Though it is beyond doubt that the ethniolytic condi- 

 tion of the apex in the true Brissopsis has developed from an ethmophract condition, it seems to me 

 inappropriate to unite these different types in the same genus. I do not see, why we sliould be un- 

 able to keep in mind their close relation without luiiting them into the same genus. The faet that 

 Hcmiaster batnensis shows all transitional stages from an ethmophract to an ethmolytic condition can 

 scarcely justify uniting Plcsiastcr and Diplodctus with Brissopsis. (I am not aware that such trans- 

 itional forms are known in these genera.) 



Also the genus Scliizastcr is made the object of a careful analysis by Lambert Scli. canali- 

 fcrns is made the type of a distiuct genus, with the character of the pores of the anterior ambulacrum 

 in double series. The rest of the old genus Schizastcr is subdivided into the two (recent) subgenera: 

 Parasier, with 4 genital pores (P. gibbcrtdus), and Brisastcr with 2 genital pores (Br. fragilis^ lacu- 

 ■)iosus). — This subdivision again is the result of the lack of sufficient material of the recent forms. 

 If Lambert had had occasion to make a careful comparative study of the recent forms, he would 

 undoubtedly have seen that it is quite irrational to sejoarate Sch. canalifcnis as a distiuct genus from 

 lacunosHs, orbignyaniis etc. on account of the single feature of the double pores in the anterior ambu- 

 lacrum; these species otherwise agree so closely in all other features that it is evidently quite artificial 

 to separate them into different genera. Further, to unite lacunosiis and /ragilis in the same subgenus 

 can in no way be justifiable; I trust I have shown that beyond doubt {p. 120-123); probably Lambert 

 has not seen these species himself, otherwise he could scarcely have come to this conclusion. (The faet 

 alone that he characterises the subgenus Brisastcr with t)pe species: Br. /ragilis as having two 

 genital pores seems to show this.) 



I have above repeatedly alluded to the opinion of Lambert, that the names Spalangns and 

 Schizastcr are not rightly used in the way generally accepted. Here he finally makes the change: 

 Schizastcr canalifcrus is made the type of the geniis Spatangus (the former genus Spatangus is cailed 



