liClilNOIDKA. II. 



larger form of tridentate pedicellarue. In iPh. Iiispidiivi I have found a kind of opliiceplialons pedi- 

 cellaria; this may suggest that ophicephalous i)edicellari?c will prove to exist also in the other species 

 of the genus Echiiiosoiiia. Agassiz is then t-videnth' right in making panmiunsc an ally of «/%.» 

 tenue, whereas it is certaiid\- less fortunate to make P/i. Iiispiduvt, the Pacific representative of the 

 Caribbean and Northern Atlantic Pli. iiranus»^ as b>- the latter is probabh- meant not the true Eclii- 

 nosovia uraiins. which is not known from the Caribbean vSea, but the Hygrosoma Petcrsii, which has 

 hitherto been wrongly called Phoniiosoiiia /irai/us. — Regarding the new species Pliormosoma zealandicc 

 A. Ag., established on a specimen from the Challenger St. 169, identified as Asthenosoma gracile?y, 

 it is impossible to state with certaint\- to which genus it really belongs, since not a word is said about 

 the spines and pedicellaria.-; to judge from the figure given of an ambulacrum (PI. 51. Fig- 3) it mav be 

 supposed to be hkewise an Ecliiiiosovia. which would be in accordance with the .statement (p. 108) that 

 it is allied to <Pli. hispiduiii. 



Professors Bell, de Loriol and Lambert besides Professor Agassiz have also opposed 

 my classificatory results. Professor de Loriol mily remarks regarding the genus Pseudechinus es- 

 tablished by me for EchiiiHs albociiictus Hutton, that he thinks que c'est aller un pen loin que de 

 creer une coupe nouvelle basee sur ce seul et unique caractere (et encore faudrait-il s'assurer qu'il est 

 parfaitement constant), qui ne pent s'observer que sur les exemplaires dont le revetement est entiere- 

 ment conserve ; '. As Professor Doderlein has already (op. cit. p. 231— 3) carefully answered these objec- 

 tions, I need onl\- refer to his remarks on the question with which I quite agree. I may however make 

 the more general remark that in the Families .£"c///«/V/rt", Toxopneustidcr and Echiiioinctrida, the structure 

 of the test is upon the whole ver\- similar, so much .so indeed, that it seems impossible in the test 

 alone to find reliable characters even of the families, as is well seen by the manner in which forms of 

 all three families were put together in the genera Echitrus and Sfroiigylocenfrohis. before the charac- 

 ters of the pedicellarise and spicules were taken into consideration. It almost looks as if, on reaching 

 the high level of development of these forms, nature could not go any farther on those lines, (the 

 Echinonn'tridcr, of course, form a remarkable exception), and, instead, went on to develop the pedicel- 

 larise, especially the globiferous, into very characteristic structures. Be that as it may; everybody who 

 has studied a large number of the genera and species of these three families, with regard also to 

 their pedicellarise and spicules, must be struck with the remarkable constancy and characteristic appear- 

 ance of these organs and find it \"erv natural to make them the foundation of the classification, in 

 spite of their being so small that they cannot be seen without carefid microscopical examination. — 



De Loriol's remarks (op. cit. p. 16) on my limitation of the genus Sterechiniis as well as those 

 of Professor Doderlein lloc. cit.), I caiuiot answer before I have undertaken a renewed study of this 

 whole group, which I intend to do in m\- Rei^orts of the Swedish and the German South-Polar Flx- 

 peditions. 



Professor Bell in his Report on the Echinoidea from South-Africa^ most decidedly keeps aloof 

 from my classification, without giving, however, very definite objections. To his remark that he does 



' Notes pour servir a 1' etude des Echiiiodennes. II. Ser. Fasc. II. 1904. p. 20. 



- Marine Investigations in South .\frica. Vol. III. 1904. The Echinodernia. Part I. Echinoidea. 



Tlip Ingolf-Espedition. I\'. j. 4 



