KCHINOIDEA. I. I eg 



Further it has been taken on 63' 30' N. L. 13° 39' W. L. 92 fathoms (Wan del. 1890). 



Otherwise this species occitrs in the North-European seas up to north of Norway, at the British 

 coasts, aknig South Europe into tlie Mediterranean; \\liether it is also found at the Azores is for 

 the present uncertain (Koehler. 229. p. 23). It is found on depths between ca. 20— ca. 700 fathoms. 

 Althouj^h in the Norwegian North Sea Expedition it is noted from a couple of stations with negative 

 bottom temperature, its home must doubtless be said to be the warmer regions with po.sitive bottom 

 temperature. It does not occur in the cold area of the Norwegian Sea. 



According to the statements given in the literature it is much wider distributed, is co.smo- 

 politan, and ranges to a depth of 2435 fathoms (Chall. Ech. p. 213 — 14). As has already repeatedly 

 been shown above, many of these statements are founded on \vrong determinations, and to judge by 

 these there is all probability that also the other statements, according to which Ecli. acutitx (or >ior- 

 vrgiois) is said to occur outside of the territory stated above, are founded on wrong determinations. 

 The places from which it is mentioned are: the eastern coast of North .\merica to Florida, Ascension, 

 the western coast of Patagonia, the Kermadec Islands, and Japan. As to the occurrence at the Atlantic 

 coasts of North America, I cannot, of course, control the numerous statements of Ech. i/oniegiciis being 

 found there; but the specimens that our museum has received from U. S. National Museum under 

 the name of Ech. non-rgicits, at all events, are not this species, but Ech. affinis^ and the statements in 

 Ch.all. Ech. p. 117 that EcIi. norvcgicits has been taken on sts. 46 and 47 (off Cape Cod) are also founded 

 on wrong determinations, what I have had occasion to substantiate during my stay at British Museum 

 — these specimens are also E.cli. ciffiiiis. Also EcIi. ciciifus is in Chall. Ech. (p. 115) mentioned from 

 the same place (st. 46); to be sure, I have not seen the specimens upon which this statement is 

 founded, but considering how it is with Ech. norvcgicits from the same station, and as the statement 

 of Eclt. clcgaris being found at the same place is also founded on a wrong determination (it is Ech. 

 Alcxaiidri]^ I think it best to remain sceptical with regard to F^ch. ncii/ns from st. 46 — and upon 

 the wliole with regard to all statements of the occurrence of this species off North America. The 

 specimens from Ascen.sion (Cliall. st. 343I referred by Agassiz to Ech. acutiis belong to another, new 

 .species, described above (p. 100) by the name of Ecli. atlaiiticus. 



F"rom the western coast of Patagonia (Chall. st. 308) Agassiz mentions Ech. norvegicn.';: in 

 British Museum I have seen the specimens upon which this statement is founded; they are two 

 different species, viz. Stcrcchimi.^ iiiagcllaniciis and an ii'i-///;//i'j-.species, probably a new one, but at all 

 events closely allied to Elcli. clcgatis^ accordingly belonging to another group of species than Ech. 

 actitits. From the Kermadec Islands (Chall. st. 170) Eclt. acjitits is mentioned; it is a large, fine 

 specimen of Ech. afffiiis^ as far as I was able to decide by a short examination; at all events it has 

 nothing to do with Ech. aciitiis. With regard to the occurrence of this .species at Japan, finally, Ech. 

 norvcgicus is in Chall. Ech. (p. 117) mentioned from this locality (sts. 232 and 235): I have seen two 

 specimens from st. 232, which are, no doubt, Ecli. lucidus Doderl. No more than all the above men- 

 tioned specimens they have anything to do with F^ch. norvcgicus. I have not seen the specimens 

 from St. 235, but there can, I think, scarcely be any doubt that they are the same species as those 

 from St. 232. — With this I think that the pretended enormous distribution of Ech. acitfus is refuted. 

 As far as we hitherto know, it occurs only in the North-European seas and the Mediterranean. 



