1-2 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



one belongs to the genns Dorof/dar/s^ have in the literature been wrongly referred \o D.papillata, viz. 

 Dorocidaris imda, Tretocidaris annulata^ spinosa, Cidaris a/finis^ baculosa and another C/f/f/r/i'-species 

 (Chall. St. 204), Stereocidaris Lorioli^ and another Sfcrcocidarts-species (Chall. st. 210) — a fine demon- 

 stration of the trustworthiness of the statements hitherto foxmd in the literature with regard to the 

 occurrence and distribution of these animals. 



Cidaris Thmiarsii. The type specimen has a short limb on the stalk of the pedicellarise; I 

 suppose then, that the specimens, in which I have found a long limb (p. 17), do not belong to this 

 species. The main point, however, is that C. Tlioiiarsii as well as its close relation C. Galapagensis^ 

 belong to the genus Cidaris. I shall not here trench on the question whether galapagensis can really 

 be kept up as a separate species. 



Cidaris au>iiilifcra (pp. 19 — 20, 28). Having examined the type specimen of Lamarck in the 

 museum of Paris I am able definitively to decide the question of this species. It is the species figured 

 by de Loriol (243) under this name, and it is doubtless synonymous with C. baculosa., while it has 

 nothing to do with C. bispiiiosa and the genus Stephanocidaris. The representation of these species 

 given by Doderlein in -sBericht iiber die von Herrn Prof. Semon bei Amboina und Thursday Island 

 gesammelten Echinoidea>: (Semon. Zool. Forschungsreisen in Australien und dem Malayischen Archipel. 

 V. 1902. — Jen. Denkschr. VIII') is completely correct. The type specimen oi C.aiimtlifcra is a naked 

 test filled with wax, on which the radioles are fixed with needles. Secondary spines, pedicellaria;, and 

 tube feet are completeh- wanting, but the red spots on the neck of the radioles leave no doubt that 

 it is a form of C.bactilosa. As baculosa is named first by Lamarck, the name of annulifera must be 

 rejected as a specific name, can only be kept as the name of a variety of baculosa, as has been done 

 b\' Doderlein. — On the other hand I cannot agree with Doderlein, when he adopts the name 

 of pistillaris Lamk. instead of baculosa., because Lamarck names pistillaris as the first name. It 

 would, no doubt, be correct if we could prove with certainty that C. pistillaris and bac?ilosa are one 

 species, but this we cannot do, as the type specimen seems to be existing no more. It is not found in 

 the museum in -Jardin des plantes , and it cannot be decided, whether a specimen found under this 

 name in ' Ecole des mines » in Paris, is a t}pe specimen. It is to be noted, however, that this specimen 

 has the red spots on the neck of the spines. Lamarck does not name Ecole des mines under this 

 species, neither is it in < Catalogue raisonne:: mentioned from this collection. Two specimens from the 

 Seychelles (Rousseaii 1841) found in the museum in Jardin des plantes under the name oi pislillaris 

 do exactly want the red spots on the neck of the spines, but have close, bluish red streaks. Probably 

 they are genuine Cidaris., perhaps only a variety of baculosa, but as I could find no large globiferous 

 pedicellarise on the specnnens, I cannot decide it with certainty. Doderlein (op. cit. p. 693) says that 

 ■selten fliessen die Tiipfel in Langsstreifen zusammen : ; I cannot see, however, that he has proved the 

 specimens with these longitudinal streaks to be the same species as the typical baculosa — if indivi- 

 duals with both forms of spines might be found, it might be taken to be certain. ^ P'or the present 

 I niu.st regard this form with the longitudinal streaks (presumably the C. pistillaris of Lamarck) as 

 a separate species or, at all events, a distinct variety of C. baculosa which is so very rich in forms. 



') This very important and excellent work did not appear till tlie printing of the pre.seut work was begun, so I have 

 not been able to take it into consideration. It <loes not, however, overthrow any of my results. 



