lo4 SVEK LOVÉX, ON THE ECHINOIDEA BESCRIBEU BY LINX.^US. 



of D. setosum, and on tlie other hand tlie verruculcP between 

 tliem are somewhat too largc, but in those days the deniand 

 for accuracy of detail was easily satisfied. It tlicrofore appears 

 to me as an indubitable fact. tliat the ligure B on the plate 

 XIV in RuMPHius rcpresents a specimen of the E. saxatilis L. 

 and not one of the Echinus Diadema L. Of thi«! hitter no fioure 



er 



exists in the old authors, and it appears to have been \\\\- 

 known ixntil described by LiNNiEUS. In lecturing on the Echinoi- 

 dea in the autumn of 1752, then fresh from his work at Drott- 

 nino-holm, he did not refor to anv iio-ure, at least none of the 

 fov;r manuscripts alludes to any, and it mav be siipposed that 

 the reference to the tig. B of Rumphius imder the Echinus Dia- 

 dema has been added in preparing the S. N. ed. 10, 175S, 

 when perhaps six years had passed since lie had seen the 

 specimen in the Queen's Cabinet, and at a time when he had 

 no opportunity of comparing it again, — if it l)e not, as seems 

 to me more likely, that it was siniplv misphiced. 



Another recognisable figiire of the E. saxatilis L.. in 

 d'Argenville's Avork, 1742, fig. D on the 28th plate, was erro- 

 neously bestowed on the E. mamillatus, and is to be restored 

 to its due place. But two refercnces to Klein are to be en- 

 tirely rejected, namely the one added in 1758 under the E. saxa- 

 tilis, referred by Lamahck to his E. miliaris, and the one from 

 the French translation appended in 1767 to the E. Diadema, 

 mentioned above under the E. Lixula L. 



Havino- dictated to his auditorv in 1752 the diaonosis of 

 his sixth species of Echinus, Lixx.EUS added: >is called saxa- 

 tilis», and this xnomen triviale» became its name in the S. X. 

 ed. 10, 1758. It is taken from p. iW in Kumphius. It is. 

 however, very easy to perceive that the Echinoid there alluded 

 to is something widelv different from the one that is fio-iired 

 as A on t. XIV, and which Rumphius certainly had not^in 

 view. The sort, or rather the sorts he h.ad before his eyes 

 in Amboina he describes as oblong (»langwerpig»), thick- 

 shelled, with tubercles larger than those (>f his esculentus>: '), 

 aud with longer spines, strong enough to make it very difli- 

 cult to lav hold of the animal, livino- as it does in the cavi- 

 ties of eorals and growing there until it caunot be extracted, 

 — traits all of them deeidedly pointing towards the Echino- 

 metrae. Th is was the interpretation adopted in 1770 by Houi- 



') See above p. 63. 



