the Morphology and Classification of the Saleniidge. 131 



Perignathic girdle with low broad ridges and slender unarched 

 processes. 



Distribution. Fossil : Upper Jurassic, Europe ; Cretaceous, 

 Europe and England. 



Tliere are two genera, one established by Cotteau, and 

 the other by Desor, which can hardly be separated from 

 Peltastes^ namely Pseudosalenia^ Cotteau, and Hyposalenia^ 

 Desor. 



Pseudosaleniaj Cotteau, 1859, Ech. nouv. ou peu connus, 

 p. 22. It has the apical system projecting, non-granulate, 

 marked with sutural impressions, with very narrow, often 

 flexuous ambulacra, the tubercles of which are imperforate, 

 except near the actinal surface. The dorso-central plate is in 

 the axis of the test, and the periproct is posterior as in Peltas- 

 tes. The figures given by Cotteau in " Note sur la famille des 

 Saldnidees," Bull. Soc. Geol. de France, 2" ser. t. xviii. p. 622, 

 show that the dorso-central plate is as perfect as in Acro- 

 salenia spinosa, and there do not appear to have been any 

 accessory plates. No radial enters the periproctal ring. The 

 nature of the ambulacral plates is not known, but the perfo- 

 rate or imperforate condition of the tubercles is not of generic 

 value. There really is no satisfactory distinction between 

 this genus and the well-defined PeltasteSy and we consider the 

 genera to be synonymous. 



Hyposalenia^ Desor, 1858, Synopsis, p. 147, pi. xx. (non 

 xix.), is synonymous with Peltastes, with which it was origi- 

 nally associated. Wright unfortunately admitted the genua 

 and misquoted Desor. He stated, in his table of the genera 

 of the Saleniidaj, op. cit. p. 228, that the vent is " excentral, 

 posterior, and inclined to the right side." This is a mistake, 

 and it is satisfactory to know that it was withdrawn subse- 

 quently. 



The genus Goniophorus, Agass., 1838, Monogr. des Salenies ; 

 Desor, Synopsis, p. 146 ; Cotteau, Bull, Soc. Gdol. de 

 France, 2" s^r. t. xviii. p. 624 (1861), is so closely allied to 

 Peltastes that there has been some discussion whether it should 

 not be considered a subgenus of it. Cotteau, however, drew 

 attention to deep circular depressions at the base of the ambu- 

 lacral granules near the ambitus, and he noticed pores in them 

 resembling those of the poriferous zones. He considered that 

 these depressions were unique amongst the Echinoidea, and 

 therefore the type remained as a genus. All the other charac- 

 ters of the species included under Goniophorus are subgeneric. 

 There are some excellent specimens of the common species in 

 the Museum of Practical Geology in Jermyn Street, and they 



9* 



