REPORT ON THE ECHINOIDEA—MORTENSEN 51 
A more detailed description of this species, accompanied by the 
necessary illustrations, will be given in vol. 3, pt. 2, of my Monograph 
of the Echinoidea. 
Genus ECHINOMETRA Gray 
ECHINOMETRA MATHAEI (de Blainville) 
Echinometra mathaei MortENSEN, Ingolf Echinoidea, pt. 1, p. 128, 1903.—H. L. 
Criark, Hawaiian and other Pacific Hchini, Pedinidae, ete. p. 3872, 1912; 
Catalogue of the recent sea-urchins in the British Museum, p. 143, 1925. 
Localities —Station 5108; China Sea, off southern Luzon; Corregi- 
dor Light bearing N. 39° E., 22.5 miles distant (lat. 14°05’05’" N., 
long. 120°19’45’’ E.) ; 23 meters; coral; January 15, 1908. One young 
specimen. 
Station 5140; in the vicinity of Jolo (Sulu) ; Jolo Light bearing 8S. 
33° W., 6.1 miles distant (lat. 6°08’45”’ N., long. 121°03’00’" E.) ; 189 
meters; fine coral sand; February 14, 1908. Two specimens. 
Port Binanga, Subig Bay, Luzon; January 9, 1908. Six specimens. 
Nazug Bay, Luzon; January 16, 1908. One young specimen. 
Marongas Island; February 10, 1908. One young specimen. 
Tataan, Simulac Island; February 19, 1908. One specimen. 
Jolo; shore; March 6, 1908. One specimen. 
Endeavor Strait, Palawan; December 22-24, 1908. Two specimens. 
Sirinao Island, Palawan; December 31, 1908. One specimen. 
Verde del Sur Island, Palawan; April 6, 1909. Three young 
specimens, 
Batan Island; June 5, 1909. Two specimens. 
Macalubo Island; June 14, 1909. One specimen. 
Remarks. —The finding of a specimen of this eminently littoral sea- 
urchin at a depth of 139 meters (station 5140) is so extraordinary that 
I cannot help suggesting that some mistake has occurred in the label- 
ing. It has not otherwise been recorded from a greater depth than 34 
meters, at which depth it was dredged by the Szboga. 
ECHINOMETRA PICTA A. Agassiz and H. L. Clark 
Echinometra picta H. L. CrarK, Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini, Pedinidae, 
etc., p. 373, pl. 95, figs. 6-12; pl. 114, figs. 5, 6, 1912. 
Locality—Apra Bay, Guam; November 19, 1907. Four specimens. 
Remarks.—Without entering here on the question of the specific 
validity of Echinometra picta, or its possible identity with EZ. mathaei, 
I can only say that these specimens seem to me to fit well with the de- 
scription of /. picta and to differ rather conspicuously in general ap- 
. pearance from the Philippine specimens of £’. mathae7, so that it seems 
quite natural to keep them under a separate name. 
