ECHINOIDEA. 11. 



as possiblf all the structures known to lie of classificat()r\' importance, and Professor Agassi z will, I li(jpe, 

 recognize that I have done ni\ (lul\ in this respect. If 1 have characteri.sed some new species niainh 

 l)y the structure of their pedicellaria', this is due to the fact that the specimens, bein<; in the posses- 

 sion of foreign mnsenm.s, were not at in\ full dispo.sal. Moreover, I have established such new species 

 only when convinced of having made known sufficient characters for their certain recognition, It does, 

 ho\ve\er, seem to me that an\ method which enables one to determine the species of a rare specimen 

 without destroying or damaging it, is to Ije welcomed. Such a method is presented in many cases, 

 though certainly not in all, by the study of the pedicellaria;; if by ado])ting this method we can pre- 

 .ser\-e some beautiful or rare specimen undamaged in a Mtiseum, sureh the destruction of such a speci- 

 men would be regrettable. Hence I have cited with approbation the remark of .Stewart: that we 

 max be enabled by the examination of even an anibulacral tube or pedicellaria etc. to determine a 

 species without denudation of portions of the corona, which is sometimes not desirable . Apart from 

 this, e\en Professor Agassiz will agree, sureh', that one may lament the loss of t\pe-s])ecimens 

 of several of the insufficiently described species of older authors without being stigmatised as childish ; 

 but I have never lamented the loss of specimens due to the necessar\- examination of the test; indeed 

 I fail to see, why the removal of a few spines from the test should involve the loss of the s])ecimen. 

 Possibh- Professor Agassiz has uiterpreted m>- occasional use of the word destroy to mean loss, though 

 my intention was to allude onh' to the destruction of the beautiful appearance of the specimens. — 

 For the rest, I may refer to the remarks of Professor Dciderlein (Op. cit. p. 70) on this question, with 

 which I fully agree, cdenn(auch) ich stehe auf dem Standpunkt, dass ich nur dann eine .\rt als geniigend 

 gekennzeichnet ansehe, wenn die alte Methode, die Beschreibung von Schale u, s. w. \ereinigt ist mit 

 der neuen Methode der Beschreibung der Pedicellarien u. s. w. 



I now come to the gravest accusation broirght against me by Professor Agassiz, that of gratui- 

 tous misrepresentation of facts . On p. 25 (Op. cit.) Professor Agassiz says: Dr. Mortensen names as 

 Dorocidaris micans specimens of a Cidaris which he receiv^ed from the U. S. National Museum. Washing- 

 ton, labelled as Porocidaris Sharreri (« Albatross 1885. St. 2415) and also from the V. S. Fish Commis- 

 sion (Albatross 1885. St. 2345) under the same name. I beg to call Dr. Mortensen's attention to the 

 fact that the publication of the « Blake- Echini dates back to 1883, and that I was in no wa\- con- 

 cerned in making the collection of the Albatross in 1885, or with the identification of the Echinoids 

 then collected. Dr. Mortensen's statements (<Ingolf Echinoidea. pp. 22, 23) in regard to Porocidaris 

 Sharreri are gratuitous misrepresentations of facts . — My remarks on Porocidaris Slmrrrri run thus 

 (loc. cit.|: -Agassiz unfortunately gives no details as to the iiedicellaria-, and from the figure (o]). cit. 

 PI. Ill) it cannot be decided whether it is a genuine Porocidaris. There seems to be no higliK deve- 

 loped neck on the spines (in the text nothing is said of this feature); the pedicellaria: might well look 

 like those of P. purpurata^ but a close examination will be necessary for the decision. By the kindness 

 of Prof. Rathbun I have from (the) U. S. National Museum received a specimen determined as 

 P. Sliarrcri (< Albatross > 1875. ^I^- 2415); it pro\ed to be the new species Stcrcocidaris ingolfiaiia de- 

 scribed hereafter; it has no relation to P. Sharreri. F^rrther I have in (the) Briti-sh Mu.seuni seen a speci- 

 men determined as P. Sharreri, from the U. S. F'ish Commission (Albatross- 1885. St. 2345). Neither 

 seems this specimen to be identical with the real, figured P. Sharreri, at all events it docs not to 



The Inoolf-Expedition, [\ , 2. 2 



