20 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



the spine, which Loriol has got from Paris, has really been of C.baculosa — such a changing of 

 loose spines in a museum is not absolutely inconceivable. The C. Liitkcni described by Loriol in 

 the same work, seems rather to be the real C.anniilifera^ which must then be very nearly related to 

 C.bispinosa, perhaps identical with it. Bedford (35 p. 274) also regards C. Lntkeni as synonymous 

 witli C.annidifera Lamk., but at the same time he seems to think it to be identical with Loriol's 

 C. annulifera^ which cannot be correct. Doderlein, who has examined a specimen of Loriol's C. 

 aiinulifcra^ finds this species to be highh- consistent with C. baculosa. «Einen Unterschied zwischen 

 den beiden Arten kann icli uur in der Farbnng der Primarstacheln finden; denn selbst die Form der 

 Primarstacheln kann bei bestimmten Individnen beider Arten identisch sein. — Nur die Farbmig des 

 Schaftes ist verschieden, indem L. ainmlifcra Querbinden zeigt, die L. baculosa fehlen; die eigenthiim- 

 liche und auffallende Tupfelung des Stachelhalses dagegen, die sonst nirgends zu beobachten ist, 

 findet sich bei beiden Arten in gleicher Weise. Nachdem aber eine x\utoritat wie Al. Agassiz auf 

 Grund eines reichlichen Materials die Frage nach der moglichen Identitat der beiden Arten uberhaupt 

 nicht aufwirft, kann icli es nicht wagen bei meinem ganz imzulanglichen Materiale eine solche zu 

 behauiDten. Ich kann hier nur constatieren, dass die oben beschriebene jugendliche Z. (7««?////^rrt nach 

 ihren sammtlichen Charakteren, abgeseheu nur von der Farbung der Stachelu, unbedingt als ein 

 junges Exemplar von L. baculosa gelten konnte- (116 13.24). Prominence is also given to the fact 

 that the pedicellarite are quite identical. In another work (245) Loriol gives a thorough description 

 and figures of C. baculosa, but its resemblance with the C. annulifera before described by him, is not 

 at all mentioned. Thus the fact seems to be: either Loriol's C. annulifera is really this species — 

 and then C. baculosa Lamk. and C. ainntlifcra are synonyms — or it has, on account of some error 

 or other, been wrongly determined — and then C. annulifera is most nearly related to C. bispinosa 

 Lamk. (perhaps synonymous with it). The latter is the more probable. An examination of tlie type- 

 specimens, especially their pedicellarise, will easily decide this question. To be sure, Perrier has 

 figured pedicellarise of these two species, but unfortunately only so little exactly and minuteh- that he 

 has not at all contributed to the clearing up of the question, especially as of one species he has only 

 figured a globiferons pedicellaria, of the other only a trideutate one. 



According to Doderlein (116 p. 25) Schleinitzia crcnidaris Studer is very nearly related to C. 

 baculosa; Stnder's figures (386) agree also partly with it, the separately figured sisines having all 

 the characteristic spots on the neck. On the figure of the whole animal these spots, however, are 

 not found, and as, according to informations I have received from both Geh.rath, Prof. E. v. Martens 

 and Prof. Doderlein, spines of at least two different species are found in the glass together with 

 the type-specimen (v. Martens has sent me some of the spines), the safest jjlan will be to say 

 nothing definite of this species, till the iDcdicellarise of the type-specimen have l)eeu examined. 

 Studer only figures the small form of the globiferons pedicellarise. 



Among the species referred to Phyllacaiithus by Agassiz, still one has not been mentioned, 

 viz. /%. gigantea Ag. It differs from all other known Cidarids l)y its peculiar spines, as well ])rimary 

 as secondary ones; also its pedicellarise are peculiar. The large globiferous ones |P1. X, P'ig-s. 15, 19) 

 have a large cordate opening the lower limit of which is formed like a highly protruding lower lip; 

 the opening reaches to the very point, and no end-tooth is found. No limb on the stalk. The 



