EClilNUIDEA. 1. 170 



the museum of Paris called Sfr. gibbosits Val. (1. Galapagos. M. Rousseau. 1846). The> are Sphcrr- 

 cchinns granulans (or, if llit\' be really froui Galapagos, a.no\.\\ij\ Sp/i(rrtc/it>iHS-SY>^c\es{australi(e'})). On 

 the back of the label is written achete a Loudres — thus the locality cannot be regarded as reliable. 



ParaccntrotKS Gaiiiiardi (p. 1241. On a specimen of this species in the museum of Paris (the 

 type specimen of Ech. aciculatiis Hupe, which is a synonym of Gaiiiiardi) I ]ia\e found a small triden- 

 tate pedicellaria ; it was somewhat broken, but showed nevertheless sufficiently that it is similar to 

 those of P. lividtts^ so that a specific character is scarcely to be found in it. 



Anthocidaris lioinalostoma (p. 125). The type specimens of Ech. /lonia/ostoiiiaXsX. are two naked 

 tests that are realh- \-ery similar to Anthocidaris] but it cannot be decided by the naked tests whether 

 they are tlie same species. The locality (New Zealand) tells against the identit\. I have above (loc. 

 cit.) said that the name of homalostoma would have to be used whether lhe\' be identical or not. 

 According to the opinion of Doderlein expressed to me, this is incorrect, and I shall readily submit 

 to his authority. Then the species will get the name of Anthocidaris crassispiiui (Ag.). 



Strongylocentrotus iiudiis (pp. 126, 140). A specimen of this species (from Hakodadi — Japan 1 

 I have examined in Strassburg. No globiferous pedicellaria; were found on it, but the s])icules show 

 it to be a genuine Strongylocentrottis. The tridentate pedicellarite occur in three different forms, as 

 in drohachiensis; a short, broad one (I'S"'") resembling that figured on PI. XX. Fig. 20; a long, narrow 

 one (2™") resembling that figured on PI. XX. P'ig. 6, onh- more serrate below; and finally a small one 

 (ca. 0-5'"'"), more particularly corresponding to the third form in drobachiciisis (PL XX. Fig. 4); it is simph- 

 leaf-shaped with quite straight edge, without marked indentations. The other pedicellarise show no 

 peculiarities. 



Strongyloccntrotus iiicxicaiins (pp. 126, 140). The specimens from Chili mentioned by Sluiter 

 (371), are Echinometrids — but whether they be really .S7/-. iiirxicaiius, is perhaps not quite sure, so 

 the systematic position of this species must continue to be regarded as doubtful. 



Echinus elegaiis (p. 145). The specimens from Cape Verd I Gazelle ) noted b\- Studer as Ech. 

 elegaiis?, are two small naked tests; one is doubtless Geiiocidaris iiiacnlata, the other I suppose to be 

 a ParrcJiiiius^ but it cannot be decided with certaintv. 



Echinus afpiiiis (p. 152). For this .species I can add one more localit)', having found in the 

 museum of Paris some specimens from 39" 38' N. L. 70°56'W. L. 1241 fathoms ( Blake ); they were 

 called Ech. norvcgictis. 



Echinus acutus, van iiorvegicus (p. 155). Some small specimens from the Faroe Chaimel 

 (<: Michael Sars» 150—217 fathoms. Ad. S. Jensen) have a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates 

 and upon the whole in regular series; the}' are only irregular as to size, especially a few ones at the 

 ambitus being disproportionately large. Upon the whole the ambidacral areas have here quite the 

 same appearance as in some specimens of Ech. affinis. The}- are then to be distinguished from this 

 species by the colour and the globiferous pedicellarise, the latter having in affinis 2—2 (more rarely 

 2—3) lateral teeth, while in norvcgicus the}- have i — i or 1—2 lateral teeth. The tridentate pedicellarite 

 of the two species are so similar, that no distinguishing character can be found in this feature. On 

 the other hand the spicules of the stalk of the pedicellarise is a good character of norvegicus — when 

 they are found, but they are no constant feature. — Evidently Ech. affinis is more particularly allied 



23* 



