BIHANG TILL K. SV. VET.-AKAD. HANDL. BAND 13. AFD. IV. N:0 5. 173 



1758. Clypeaster rosaceus {no7i L.) [}, 1827. Bory, Ene. Meth. I, 



p. 141, t. 145, f. 1, 

 2, imit. Klein. 



1855. Ecliinanthus explanatus Gray, Cat. p. 7, t. 2. f. 1, orig. 



1861. Clypeaster placunarius f 7/ on Lamck.) Michelin, Mon. Clyp. 



p. 135, t. 35, f.' 1, 

 orig. 



The form represented bv Klein: t. 17, f. A, and t. 18, 

 f. B, which is the E. reticulatus L.; t. 19, f. A, JB, whicli 

 is the E. rosaceus L.; t. 19, f. C, D, by Desmoulins referred 

 to the Clypeaster ambiguus Lamck.^), were all three united 

 by Leske-), into one species which he proposed to call Echin- 

 anthvis humilis, at the same time admitting it to be the 

 Echinus rosaceus L.; reasons enough for dropping the namc 

 he ffave. 



That the Scutella placvmaria Lamck.^) cannot liave been 

 a Clypeaster is evident from the words: »ambulacris angustis 

 linearibus, apice disjunctis» in its diagnosis. Blainville*), 

 after having examincd the type specimen in the collection of 

 the Duke of Rivoli, placed it in the genus Echinodiscus, 

 characterised by: »ambulacres divergeant par la separation 

 complete de chaque ligne de doubles porcs. Pores génitaux 

 au nombre de quatrc. The name placunarius therefore is to 

 be dismissed here. It is possible that Gray used it for an 

 E. rosaceus L., of which species Michelin gave an excellent 

 ligure as Cl. placunarius Lamck. 



') Called Se. ambigena Lamck., Hist. An. s. v., III. 12, a misprint 

 which has been perpetuated univer.sally, although corrected many yeara 

 ago by BoRY DE St Vincent, Ene. méth. I, Explic., p. 142. 



2) Addit. p. 29, 187. 



3) Hist. An. s. v., III, p. 12. 



*) Diet. Se. N.. LX, p. 199, 1830; Man. d'Act., p. 218, 1834. 



