108 BULLETIN 100, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 
Genus FIBULARIA Lamarck 
FIBULARIA OVULUM Lamarck 
Fibularia ovulum A. A@assiz, Revision of the Echini, pp. 129, 507, pl. 18, figs. 
1-8, 1878. 
Fibularia craniolaris H. L. CriarK, Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini, 
Clypeastridae. . . Scutellidae, p. 57, 1914—KoruLer, Echinoderma of the 
Indian Museum, Echinoidea, pt. 2, p. 138, pl. 15, fig. 4, 1922 —H. L. CiarK, 
Catalogue of the Recent séa-urchins in the British Museum, p. 163, 1925. 
Localities —Station 5133, off Panabutan Point; two meters; Feb- 
ruary 6, 1908. Several small dead tests. 
Station 5159, Tinakta Island; 18 meters; February 19, 1908. Num- 
erous small dead tests. 
Station 5164, Observation Island; 33 meters; February 28, 1908. 
Several small dead tests. 
Station 5217, Anima Sola Island; 192 meters; April 21, 1908. One 
small, old, worn test. 
Remarks.—That not a single one of these numerous specimens was 
alive when taken is, no doubt, due to the fact that this species lives 
buried rather deeply in the ground. Several of the specimens are old 
and worn, some of them more recently dead; in one of the specimens 
from station 5159 the characteristic radiating periproctal plates are 
preserved. In the old, worn specimens the pores of the petals are 
often somewhat enlarged. 
In 1914 H. L. Clark took the ill-considered and very regrettable 
step of changing the hitherto unanimously used name ovulum of 
Lamarck to the name craniolaris of Leske, and later authors, myself 
included, have adopted the name craniolaris without going critically 
into the matter. It is only now that I have studied this nomenclatural 
question more carefully. 
Leske, in his “Additamenta ad I.Th.Kleinii Naturalis Dispositio 
Echinodermatum,” p. 214, 1778, designated by the name of H'chinocy- 
amus craniolaris the species represented in plate 1, figures 16-20, of 
van Phelsum’s “Brief aan Corn. Nozeman over de Gewelv-Slekken of 
Zee-Egelen.” It is true that the figures 18-20 resemble the high 
globose Fibularia ovulum, but figures 16 and 17 resemble more a flat 
form like X'chinocyamus pusillus. It is evident that all van Phelsum’s 
figures are grossly misdrawn and not recognizable with certainty. 
The only thing that is certain is that van Phelsum says that his speci- 
mens came from the Adriatic, where only Echinocyamus pusillus 
occurs. All agree that van Phelsum’s 14 species are in reality only 
one and the same species, which leads to the conclusion that craniolaris, 
and all the other species of Leske based on the figures of van Phelsum, 
are in reality synonyms of E'chinocyamus pusillus. Clark’s action in 
taking Leske’s species craniolaris to be identical with Fibularia ovulum 
in reality leads him to endorse Lambert’s interchanging the two names 
