178 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



syuonym of margaritaceus. The species described above as margaritaceus ^ will, if margaritacetis and 

 magellaniats really be identical, get the name of SierccJi. diadema (Studer), in which species Stcrech. 

 aniarcticus (Koehler) is to be included as a synonym. With regard to the geographical distribution 

 it will, I suppose, be proved that St. diadema (^iiiargaritaceusl) only occurs in the seas round Kerguelen, 

 St. margaritaceus {magellaniats) round Patagonia — analogous with Stereocidaris nutrix and canali- 

 culata. The statements of diadema (under the name of margaritaceus) from Patagonia, I think will 

 have to be referred to /lorridus., which is, as to habitus, very similar to this species'). It is still to be 

 observed that -SV. diadema has a distinct genital papilla. 



Sterechiiuts horridiis (p. 102J. There are no plates in the buccal membrane outside of the buccal 

 plates, which carry spines. The actinal primary spines are not curved. Tlie character pointed out in 

 the diagnosis of the genus Sterechimis (p. 135), that the buccal membrane is almost or quite naked 

 outside of the buccal plates, is thus correct. 



Pseiidechinus albociiicttis (p. 104). One of the anal plates is somewhat larger than the others, 

 and carries a larger tubercle. No spines on the buccal plates. 



Parechimis microttibercnlatiis (p. 107). The type specimen of this species is the common Medi- 

 terranean form; the statement of Blainville that it has 6 pairs of pores in each arc, is thus incorrect. 



Spharcchinus aiisfralicc (p. 117). Has a j^rimary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. Otherwise 

 the specimen examined by me, is so very similar to Sp/i. gianularis, that I should not be surprised, if 

 it proved to be this species ( — and in this case it is surely not from Australia — ); perhaps I have 

 then not seen the real Sp/i. australia- at all. 



Stro7igylocentrotus interinedius and chlorocentrotus (pp. 120 — 121). What I have hitherto regarded 

 as Str. intermedins is not this species, \sy\t Str. pulcherrijtnis (comp. my supposition expressed on p. 121 

 that p7ilc/ierrimiis, iittermedias, and chlorocentrotus (?) might be one species). The real interviedius, 

 which I got to know from Prof. Doderlein, is as to habitus very similar to drobachiensis, also 

 with regard to pedicellaria; and spicules, but is — according to Doderlein 's (not published) examina- 

 tions - distinguished from this b\- having a considerably larger number of plates in both areas, and 

 a rather smaller apical area than specimens of drabachiensis of the same size. At all events the two 

 .species are very closeh- allied. 



(iStrongyloceiitrotusA gibbosus (p. 123). The examination of the pedicellarise of one of the type 

 specimens in Paris .shows that this species is an Echinometrid, I suppose of the genus Toxocidaris, or 

 perhaps a new genus. With the g^nns Loxechinus this species has nothing to do; the specimen (Chall. 

 St. 304), by which I referred gibbosus to this genus, is thus wrongly determined (what I had a slight 

 impression of - comp. the incongruity in the relation of the ocular plates mentioned loc. cit.). Besides 

 the two type .specimens (Expedition de la Bonite. M. Gaudichaud. 1837) two specimens are found in 



'J When the remarks |above were printed, I received from the museum in Jardiu des Plantes* a specimen called 

 Eclt. mafgarilaceus from Cape Horn, 1894 (ColL Cotteau). As to habitus it resembles diadema, the secondary spines, however, 

 being somewhat coarser. All the ocular plates are shut off from the periproct; distinct central plate, as in diadema. Primary 

 tubercle on every other ambulacral plate — somewhat indistinct towards the apical area. Primary spines round the mouth 

 curved at the point; a few spines on the buccal plates. The pedicellaria^ as in diadema. — Thus this specimen agrees neither 

 with diadema, horridus, nor Neumayeri; nevertheless it seems rather irrational to interpret it as a separate species. The 

 supposition that diadema, /lorndus, and Neumayeri are all together onl}- one very varying specie.s, seems to me to be rather 

 obvious. But to decide this question a great material will be necessary. 



