’ 
96 *“ BNDEAVOUR ”” SCIENTIFIC RESULTS. 
thousand four hundred species of Ophiurans known and that 
only twenty-six occur in the ‘“‘ Endeavour ”’ collection, it is 
remarkable that twenty-nine species of Echini occur, with 
fewer than five hundred species known. Of these twenty- 
nine species, five are here described for the first time and five 
others are recorded for the first time from Australia. The 
most remarkable specimen is undoubtedly the adult indi- 
vidual of Hchinus horridus, a species previously known from 
off the coast of Chili, but the fine series of Prionocidaris: 
australis, the handsome new Coelopleurus and the new Maretia 
are worthy of particular mention. Up to the present time 
about sixty species of Echini have been listed from Australia,, 
but wrong identifications have been so numerous and mis- 
leading, the real number of species is very uncertain. 
Probably, including the ten here added to the list, there 
are at least sixty Australian Echini occurring in less than 
three hundred fathoms, thirty-five of which are peculiar to 
Australia. 
Family CIDARID. 
Genus PHyLLacantuus, Brandt. 
As regards the generic name Phyllacanthus, I have given 
fresh and careful attention to Brandt’s paper, and I see no 
ground for rejecting his subgenera. Lambert and Thiéry! 
have argued very strongly that these groups are invalid, but 
there seems to me a fundamental error in the argument 
which quite vitiates it. They assume that Brandt is revising 
and classifying all Echini, and hence when he gives three 
subgenera under the genus Hchinus they assume that all 
the species of Hchinus are to be placed in these three sub- 
genera, and, of course, one would then have to be a synonym 
of Echinus. But such is not Brandt’s intention. He is 
simply giving a classification of the forms noted by Mertens 
in his voyage ; occasionally other species are mentioned for 
illustrative purposes, but there is no attempt to group all 
the known Kchini. Under the circumstances, then, I do not 
see why Brandt’s subgenera are not perfectly valid, certainly 
as much so as any genera of Echini that were proposed prior 
to 1846. Particularly in the case of Phyllacanthus, Brandt’s 
course is clear; he had a large cidarid from the Bonin Islands 
to deal with; its peculiarities were obvious and are fairly 
well stated ; for it he proposed a subgenus of Cidarites which 
he called Phyllacanthus, at the same time designating the 
species as P. dubia. The fact that he was planning for a full 
1. Lambert and Thiéry—Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Haute Marne, vi., 23, 1909. 
