ECHINOIDEA. I. 



15 



thinks that the\- often give excellent speciKc characters, but he was disappointed <'in ihrer erhofften 

 Verwendbarkeit zur Unterscheidirng natiirlicher Gruppen inuerhalb der Familie> (p. i). ^Nur niit 

 grosser Vorsicht diirfen Pedicellarien als sj-stematische Merkniale bei den Cidariden beniitzt werden . 

 The small pedicellarise are highly similar in almost all species, but thc\- may vary very much in the 

 separate individuals. (Only the form with a long terminal hook, occurring in Goniocidaris mikado and 

 clypeata^ is especially mentioned). The tridentate ones ( loffelartige F'orm>) are better, but they are 

 also highly varying in the separate individuals. Most applicable for the classification is the thick- 

 headed form, (the large, globiferous pedicellaria;) ; it is highly constant in form and size, and shows 

 many peculiarities, : die sehr wohl einzelne Arten, manchmal auch Gruppen charakterisiren konnen . 

 He also tries to group the species according to these peculiarities, without, however, attributing to 

 them anv great systematic importance, and therefore he does not mention the pedicellariie in his 

 diagnoses of genera. The fact is that also this form of pedicellariae shows some variability, is some- 

 times even quite wanting in some individuals, so that it is no quite reliable character. An extra- 

 ordinarv fact is < dass sehr ahnliche Formen dieser Pedicellarien bei Arten vorkommen konnen , die 

 nach den iibrigen Charakteren sehr wenig Verwandtschaft mit einander bekunden > [C. mctularia and 

 verticillata). His final result is: < In vielen Fallen hat nun ohne Frage die Vergleichung der Pedicel- 

 larien nicht geringen Werth fiir die Systematik; sie geben jedenfalls sehr brauchbare Charaktere zur 

 Unterscheidung der Arten. — Zur Charakterisierung von grosseren Gruppen innerhalb der Familie 

 finde ich aber Pedicellarien sehr wenig verwendbar (p. 34). 



And so the last hope of finding good generic characters in the Cidarids seems to have vanished. 

 Fortunately, however, my researches have given another result than that of Doderlein, viz. that 

 the pedicellarise yield excellent generic characters, while they may only more rarely 

 be used for distinguishing between the species. This seems to be irreconcilable with the 

 above quoted statement of Doderlein that species not more nearly related, may have quite similar 

 pedicellariEe. As instances are onh- named Cidaris Dichilarin and verticillata. Now it is quite correct 

 that they have the same kind of pedicellarise; but then the question is whether the other characters, 

 in which they differ, are sufficient to show that the\- cannot belong to the same genus. The most 

 essential difference seems to be found in the spines, which are in C. verticillata provided with large 

 thorns placed in circles far from each other, while in C.metularia the spines ha\-e the whole surface 

 evenly set with homogeneous, small tubercles arranged in longitudinal series. Also with regard to 

 the provision of the interambulacral plates with miliary tubercles a difference is found — the>- are 

 almost naked in C. verticillata , closely covered in C.metularia. As it has otherwise proved to be a 

 fact that the characters taken from the structure of the test have been anything but good as generic 

 characters, and as there seems to be nothing unnatural in the fact that spines as those in C.metu- 

 laria and verticillata are found in species of the same genus, I cannot but regard the fact of the two 

 species having the same kind of (very characteristic) pedicellarise as proving them to be nearly related, 

 so that they will have to be regarded as not too closely allied species of the same genus. Besides 

 there is another species of the same genus presenting considerably more resemblance to C. verticillata 

 than the C.metularia mentioned bv Doderlein. This is C. haculosa which is by Doderlein referred 



