KCIIINUIDKA. 11. 



Species the\" are dealiiii; with, on ilie cliance oi fiiuliiii; out tlial llieii" localities were not ^i\ en correcth 

 in a classical work written by the most celebratfd authority'. 



In the i)rccedin.i; instance, it is true, careful perusal of the text miyht have raised a doubt in 

 the mind of the student; but under l'lioniios(i)iiii //■/v/z/z/.v there is nothiu"; said in the te.xl about doubtful 

 identification. < )u this case 1 have written |Part I. p. 5S): In the description of /'/loniiosoma iirnints 

 Agassi/, uses the expression the only specimen collected , but nevertheless puts down for it two 

 different localities, St. 6 and St. 7S. This riddle I am able to solve. In (the) Briti.sh Museum a quite 

 small Echiuothurid is found from Chall. St. 78 determined b\ .\.i;assi/, as /'/i. iiraii/ts// On this 

 basis St. 78 is named without au\ reservation as a locality of /%. nraiius leomp. i'lih'iria i;nicilis 

 and Echinosonia friinr). With rej^ard to this specimen, it is otherwise ver\' badh pre.ser\ed, and not a 

 .single pedicellaria is kept. It is quite indeterminable, and consequently it cannot be considered to be 

 correct to figure details of this specimen under the name of P/ion/iosoiiui itniinis (without an\ inter- 

 rogation), as has been done bv .\gassiz (Chall. Kch. PI. X\'III. c. fig. 12). I think it cannot be denied 

 that m\ remark is quite true and \er\ moderate and not entirely out of place. Hut 1 might ha\e 

 added that b\' this incorrect mention of Station 7(S the bath\iuetrical distribution of the species becomes 

 icxx) — 1525 fathoms, as, indeed, is definitely stated in the list on ]>. 311, whereas the species was then 

 reallv known onl\- from a depth of 1525 fathoms. — vSince I merely wish here to justify m\- personal re- 

 marks I will not in this place allude to further instances of this kind to be foimd in the Report on the 

 Challenger Kchinoidea, but I cannot pass from this subject without suggesting that the personal remarks 

 of Professor Agassiz, while not more moderate in their expression, are perhaps more out of ]:)lace than mine. 

 To pass to another criticism b\ Professor Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini i). i.S|: Dr. .Morten- 

 sen harps on the fact that a great man\ species of Cidaris as well as other P'chinoids lia\e been prox-ed 

 b\' him to belong to other genera than those to which the\' were referred by others, and thus he 

 constanth" finds a fine demonstration of the trustworthmess of the statements hitherto found in the 

 literature with regard to the occurrence and distribution of these animals! ( )nce gi\en his genera, 

 the rest naturalh' follows, and we have nothing left of what has preceded. This again might seem 

 ver\- fooli.sh in me, but the facts are realh' not quite those that might be inferred from this remark b\' 

 Professor Agassiz. What 1 actualh' wrote in this connection is as follows (Parti, p. 171 — 1721; Thus 

 I have established the fact that no less than 8 different species, of which, moreover, only one lielongs 

 to the genus I )(irocid(iris, have in the literattue been wrongly referred to D. pKpil/afa. viz. Dorocidaris 

 iiiidii. rrrfotiddris mninlafa, spinosa, Cidaris affi n is. bacnlosa and another ('/(//? w-species (Chall. St. 204), 

 Stereocidoris Lorioli and another Sfcnocidaris-s^ecies (Chall. St. 310) — a fine demonstration of the 

 trustworthiness of the statements hitherto found in the literature etc. It will, I hope, be conceded that 

 this remark is not quite so foolish as would appear from Professor Agassiz' presentation of it. The 

 main tiling in systematic reports, lists of collections etc. i.s, so far as I can see, the right identification 

 of the species; whether the species be referred to one genus or another is thus far of secondar>' 

 imp(irtance and mav be a matter of discussion among specialists. But the species are the units with 

 which science has to work. Wrong identifications of species must cause all later work founded on 

 these identifications to be erroneous and, indeed, lost labour. As I have found that 8 different species 

 had been wrongly mentioned in literature under the name of Dorocidaris papillata, I thought and still 



