I'XIIINOlDlvA. II. 



Agassiz compares 3, 5 and 5, y, whereas ihe most characteristic of them, fi<^. 22, is not iiieiilioued. 

 If Profesor Agassiz Iiad compared llie figure 3 with fig. 9, and fig. 5 with fig. 22. as is the only 

 natural way to compare tliem, he would probabh' have agreed witii m\ placing tlie.se species in two 

 different genera. Since Professor Doderlein now agrees with me in referring these two species to two 



different genera, I think there can scarcely be an\ more (loni)t of the correctness of that \iew. On 



the other hand my genus Pctalocidaris. established for Goniocidark florigera, seems, indeed, untenable, 

 as pointed out bv Doderlein |p. g6). The remarks by Agassiz on this genus (p. 22) are singularlv 

 unfortunate. All the figures to which reference is made there are of Irctocidaris. The diagnosis of the 

 genus (p. 28) and a comparison of the figure of a large globiferous pedicellaria (PL X. 27) with that 

 of Goniocid. tttbaria (PI. X. 2t)| would have shown that the genus was not baseil on the small opeuintr 

 of the point of these pedicellarise but on the elongated form of the blade. 



The association of Dorocidnris hnicteafa A. Ag. with Strfiliniuicidaris hispi-nusa ma\ be wrou"', 

 but hax'ing no specimen of the former at my disposal I am unable to sa\ aii\ thing definite; since 

 Professor Doderlein has now completeh altered the position of Strpliaiiocidnris bispiiwsa bv finding- 

 its large globiferous pedicellaricC, of the form without end-tooth t\pical of the genus Cidunfrs l^amarck 

 {Cidaris Klein in Part I of this work), the form taken by me to be the large globiferous pedicellarite 

 being, in fact, the small form, it is jDrobable that I have likewise onl\- seen the small form of globiferous 

 pedicellarise in Dnroc. bracteata. But as long as we do not kncjw the large globiferous pedicellarite of 

 this species it is impossible to say with certainty to which genus it belongs. The characteristic, that 

 the abactinal system of Stiphaiiocidans bispiiiosa is somewhat uu)re flexible than in other Cidarids, 

 does not seem to me so extremeh important as Agassiz holds it, since he finds it so entireh- tmique 

 among the Cidaridic that there is no excuse for associating with it a species with the abactinal svstem 

 of the species of Dorocidnris (p. 23). (Jn comparing vertical sections of tests of Sfrphaiiocidaris bispinosa 

 AwA Dorocidnris papillaifi I find that not only the apical sxstem but the whole testis distinctlx- thinner 

 in the former. Certainh', I cannot consider this difference a very important character. I-'rofes.sor Doder- 

 lein also evideutlv holds this character to be onlv of secondary importance, since he unites Cidaris 

 bacidosu and vrrticillnta with Stipinuioc. bispinosn in the same subgenus. |Op. cit. p. lui.) 



Professor Agassiz evidenth finds it too meaningless to deserve a refutation, when on account 

 of a general resemblance I ventured to suppose that Dorocidnris pnnnmensis had the same kind of 

 globiferous pedicellarite as Cidnris nffii/is. If he had found it worth while examining these structures 

 he would have found that m\- suggestion was quite right ', and he would lia\-e ax'oided the erroneous 

 statement that this species is the Pacific representative of D. papillatn . 



For mv suggestion that Goniocidnris^ canaliculatn might be a Sfrnocidari^ Professor Agassiz 

 can see no reason, especialh since it is quite contrary to my principles to refer living species to 

 genera established for fossil species. To Alortensen affinities as usually recognized b\- most writers 

 on Echini have no interest and have no value when not based on the pedicellarite |p. 321. The cases 

 where I do refer living species to genera based on fossil species seem to me to show that I also 



I 1 have had occasion to examine specimens of this species, identified by Professor Agassiz himself, in the f. S. 

 National Museum. The onh' difference of some importance between the pedicellanse of this species and those of C. a/finis is 

 that no limb of projecting rods is found on the stalk of the large globiferous pedicellarioe — at least not on the few I 

 have examined. They occur very sparinglv; I have only foimd them in two of the nine specimens examined by me in the 

 U. S. National Museum. 



