104 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



In Challenger; -Echinoidea p. ii6 Ech. i/iagellanic/is is mentioned from Prince Edward Island 

 and Crozet Islands, from the latter place at a depth of 1600 fathoms (st. 147). I can assert positively 

 that the latter is not Ech. >nagellaniciis\ its globiferons pedicellarite are of quite another form than in 

 this species. I suppose it to be a new species allied to Ech. Ncumayeri and the other species belong- 

 ing here, but as I have not a sufficient material of pedicellarise of it, nor sufficient notes of it, I must 

 restrict myself to show that it is no Ech. niagellanictts. I also take it to be doubtful whether the 

 specimens from Prince Edward Island are Ech. magcllanicus\ at all events they will have to be exa- 

 mined more thoroughly with regard to the characters mentioned here. That this species is foimd at 

 Australia and New-Zealand I must also regard as doubtful, until renewed, thorough examinations have 

 confirmed these statements. To be sure, Farquhar (144) enumerates Ech. inagellanicus among the 

 Echinids of New-Zealand, but it ma\-, perhaps, be Ech. albociiicfiis^ which, in a communication from Prof. 

 H u 1 1 o u , is said to be the same species. That this statement is incorrect will be shown hereafter. 

 Perhaps also Ech. dariilcyciisis may be hidden among the Australian Echinids referred to Ecli. viagel- 

 lanicus., as has been suj^posed by Woods (442. p. 165). For the present Ech. niagcUanictis is only 

 known with certainty from the coasts of Patagonia and the adjoining seas. — Some small specimens 

 from Chall. st. 308 (Patagonia), by Agassiz referred to E.ch. norvegicus, are magcllaniczis. 



Echinus albocinchis Hutton. A specimen of an Echm/es-species from New-Zealand which from 

 earlier times is found in the museum of Copenhagen, must, no doubt, be referred to this species, as it 

 agrees exactly with the description. The description by Hutton, however, is far from being 

 exhaustive — what may be applied to almost all descriptions of Echinids — and so some informations 

 of this species are given here. — A primar}- tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates; the actinal 

 spines are not curved at the point, the small sjDines rather thick, almost smooth. One of the ocular 

 plates reaches almost quite to the periproct which is small, and (as far as can be seen) covered by 

 few, rather large plates without central plate. The buccal membrane is quite naked, with the excep- 

 tion of the buccal plates; whether spines are found on these cannot be decided. The globiferous pedi- 

 cellaris (PI. XIX. Fig. 19) have only one unpaired lateral tooth; the basal partis very varying in form, 

 sometimes with strongly projecting outer corners, sometimes rounded — or rounded on one side, pro- 

 jecting on the other. The tridentate pedicellarise (PL XIX. Fig. 25) are most similar to those of 

 E. inagellanicus.^ but the edge is a little serrate, not thick and smooth where the vahes are o])eu; in 

 the little space at the point where the valves meet, the edge is finely serrate. Below the articular 

 surface there is a peculiar arc reminding of that of the ophicephalous pedicellariai ; also in other Echi- 

 nids an indication of such an arc ma\' be found. The ophicephalous and tridentate pedicellarise of the 

 common form. The spicules bihamate, they seem to be rather few. — That this species is well distin- 

 guished from Ech. inagellanicus is evident from the informations given here. — Echinus elevatus Hutton, 

 according to an information received from Prof. Hutton, is synonymous with Ainblypnetistes /orniosus. 



Echinus fasciatus Parfitt (311), no doubt, is onl\- a young specimen of one of the Echinids 

 occurring at the coasts of England, but to which of these it may belong, it is impossible to see from 

 the description — it nuiy be applied to each and all of them, from Strongyloc. drobachicnsis to Ech. 

 miliaris. Philippi (323) enumerates the species Echinus Cunninghaiiii.^ Icpidtts., and rodiila without 



