94 



ECHINOIDEA. I. 



ever}- (ambiilacral) plate has its primary tubercle well developed^. He has not, however, used this 

 feature as a systematic character. On the other hand Diiben & Koren') and G. O. Sars^) have 

 carefully noted this fact in their descriptions, and Koehler (233.3) has recently given prominence to 

 this feature in his description of Stcrccliinus antarcticus. 



The apical area, no doubt, shows some difference: sonietimes all the ocular plates are shut off 

 from the periproct, sometimes one or more reach to it. That no greater importance can be attached 

 to this feature is a sure fact, which may be seen with especial clearness from a case as that of Ster- 

 echinus antarcticus [=■ Ech. margaritaceits], where in young individuals all the ocular plates are shut 

 off from the periproct, while in the adult they reach, all of them, to it (Koehler, 233.3). 



The structure of the spines does not seem to yield very good systematic characters. Mackin- 

 tosh (265) has given numerous excellent figures of transverse sections of spines from a great number 

 of species. But I do not think that he has found so great and reliable differences in this feature, that 

 it can be used as a criterion of a nearer or farther relation between the separate forms. Especialh' 

 I think that a greater variation in the structure of the spines of the same species ma}' be found, than 

 is to be seen from the work quoted. Also the secondary spines of the different species may deserve 

 a nearer examination. Hesse (195.3) has recenth' made thorough studies of the structure of Echinid- 

 spines, especially the fossil ones. He arrives at the result, cdass fast jede der einzelnen Familien der 

 Echinoideen ihren eigenen mikrostrukturellen Stacheltypus besitzt, und dass die histologischen \'er- 

 haltnisse der Stacheln ein wichtiges systematisches Kennzeichen fiir die Familien und in gewissen 

 Ziigen von secundarer Werthigkeit oft sogar fiir die Gattuugen, ja fiir einzelue Arten der Seeigel 

 liefern: (p. 204). He establishes 6 types: Cidaris^ Ecliiinis^ Dladciiia^ Clypeastcr, Sciitcll/dcr, and Spa- 

 tangus^ and if we take the families to be of a corresponding extent, the spines may be seen to yield 

 < family >-character.s. The type of Echinus comprises both Temnopleurids, Echinometrids, and Echinids 

 s. str. He divides them into two parts, a) with the radial septa not perforated, b) with the radial septa 

 perforated. To the first division belongs among others Toxopncustes pileolits^ to the second Hipponoc 

 cscidnita — two forms that are no doubt very uearh' related. Such things prove how little value is 

 to be ascribed to this character. Upon the whole it must be said that the structures mentioned b\' 

 Hesse will scarcely be of any great importance with regard to the recent Echinids; with regard to 

 the fossil ones, on the other hand, the\' will, no doubt, Ije of some importance, as we mav always from 

 the structure get some instruction with regard to the correct referring of the animal or the single 

 spine, even if it will onh- in rare cases be possible to get at the genus or the species. — Rothpletz 

 (346. p. 289) says of ■; Radioli cancellati> (corresponding to the <polyc}'clic acanthosphenote spines of 

 Mackintosh): «Nach Agassiz ware dieser letzte Typus auf die Familie ^er Echijioinetradcphesciw'ixnV.i, 

 wahrend der zweite Typus (Rad. radiati) alien iibrigen Familien mit Ausnahme der Cidariden und 

 Saleniden zukjime . As far as I can see Agassiz has said no such thing; in Rev. of Echini (p. 654) 

 he says: «In the Ecliinoinctradce we find the concentric rings most distinctly developed.); but that is 



') Skandinaviens Echinodermer. Vet. Akad. Handl. 1844. 



2) Nye Echinodermer fra deu norske Kyst. Vidensk. Selsk. I''orhaiidl. 1871. p. 23 (in the description of Ecli.dcpressus 

 \= norvegicus]). 



