432 PROF. F. J. BELL ON THE TEMNOPLEURID/E. [June 1, 



show that the same specimens can liardly have been descril)ed by 

 both these writers — the only authors wlio have given us original 

 accounts. The first description of the species contains the words 

 " Deux rangees de tubercles sur les aires ambulacraires et sur les 

 aires interambulacraires ;" in the second we find : — " In specimens 

 measuring 60 millims. there are as many as six vertical rows [of 

 primary tubercles] on each side of the median line at the ambitus in 

 the interambulacral, and three in the ambulacral space." This 

 would give twelve interambulacral tubercles, aiid might therefore 

 lead us to think that '• deux" was a misprint for "douze," were it 

 not that there are still only six ambulacral tubercles. 



Any zoologist who will take the trouble to refer to Mr. Alex. 

 Agassiz's description, will see that it is impossible to found any 

 definite opinion on the subject from the data there given ; nor can I 

 reconcile with one another the two following statements concerning 

 the species : — (i.) " There are no sutural furrows on the actinal 

 side ;" and (ii.) " The sutural furrows of lighter colour and yellowish 

 on the actinal surface." 



There are in the Museum collection specimens which can be made 

 to agree with the greater part of Mr. Alex. Agassiz's deserij)tion ; 

 and the national collection is credited by him witli specimens from tlie 

 east and west coasts of Australia. I have searched in vain for sj)e- 

 cimens of Salmacis from a locality so described ; but there is a spe- 

 cimen from the east coast of Australia collected by Stutchbury (?), 

 which is either a representative of L. Agassiz's S. globator, or is a 

 member of an undescribed species ; for this specimen has above the 

 ambitus only one row of primary tubercles in each half of the inter- 

 ambulacral areae. 



To attempt to resolve the difficulties which beset the determina- 

 tion of this species, I addressed myself to the distinguished 

 naturalist who has the care of the Echinodermata in the Museum 

 d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris, thinking that, as the type of Agassiz 

 and Desor's species was in the " Collection Deshayes," it was pos- 

 sible it might be now under his care. Prof. Edmond Perrier re- 

 sponded to my appeal with a courteous rapidity ; but, unfortunately, 

 he could only say that the species is not in the Museum of the 

 Jardin des Plantes. With great kindness he j)romised to pay a visit 

 to the Ecole des Mines, as he fancied the species was there ; as, 

 however, I have not again heard from M. Perrier, I fear that his 

 search has not been rewarded. 



Whatever course be now adopted, it is obvious that there is one 

 which would add to the present existing confusion ; that would be 

 to propose a new specific name. That course I will not adopt ; and 

 while it is difficult to know what to do to escape from the difficulty, 

 I think the safest course at present is to give a short description of 

 the two forms, and to suj)ply accurate figures of them both. Not- 

 withstanding the large number of plates, which form a not incon- 

 siderable portion of the Revision of the Echini, the only ])arts that 

 are figured of the rare and little known <S. ylobator is a plate from 

 the ambulacral tube. 

 [12] 



