KCHINOIDEA. II. 



not be found in the fossil forms is of primary imi)ortance, \vc must admit thai llie fossil forms arc in 

 some respect insufficiently preserved for identification. I quite agree with Profe.s.sor Doderlein in 

 his remarks on this subject (op. cit. p. 6g). It i.s, indeed, unfortunate that a good man\ forms of a group 

 of such eminent palseontological and geological importance as the Echinidae should not t)e in quite 

 a fit condition for reliable identification: but that cannot be helped. It is a fact that the naked tests 

 of several recent species of the three families iif///;//a'<r. Toxopnfustidcr -awA l-'xIuHovictrida- c-A\\\v.A\M^x>i- 

 ferred with certaint\- to their jjroper genus, or even to the famih- — the old genera Ec/ii/iiis nwA Strongylo- 

 crntrohis furnish the most evident proof thereof. I'.ut w lien that is the case with the recent forms, it can 

 certainly not be much better with the fossil forms of such families. We must be glad tliat it is realh' 

 possible in very man)- cases to get a definite result by the examination of the lest alone. To ])oint out 

 the case of the genera. Loxcchiiiiis ^wd. Sfroiigyloctnfrotiis being placed in two different families, as a proof 

 that the use of pedicellaria: in classification fausse tontes les analogies , seems In me as unfortunate as 

 tlie designation of the pedicellaricC as moins specialises . To unite Lnxrc/iii/ifs and St rongyloccutrotus 

 on account of their both being pohporous (which, I think, is Lambert's reason for doing so) seems 

 to me to be an o\-erestimation of a character which has be\ond doubt been de\'elo])ed separateh- in 

 different groups (Part I. 1x132 — 33; Doderlein op. cit. p. 2031. As for the other case pointed out b\' 

 Lambert as an unfortunate result of my classification, the placing in different families of Panisalcji/ii 

 and Goniopygits\ I admit that I am not personally acquainted with the fossil Goiiiopygus, and it may 

 be quite possible tliat I have Iseen mistaken in placing it in the family Arhaciidtr : but since it is 

 stated to have its ambulacra composed after the diadeniatoid t>pe, I fail to see how it could be so 

 very closely related to Parasalcnia. which has its ambulacra composed after the echinoid t\pe. The 

 pretended close relationship between Goiiiop\gits and Parasalenia seems to me more founded on false 

 analogies than their separation in two different families. And in any case this classificatorv result was 

 not reached b\ the stud\- of pedicellarise, Goiiiopygiix being onl\- known as fossil. Finally, when 



Lambert marks the pedicellariae as moins specialices>, I really wonder how these organs, which 

 exhibit so great a richness of forms, in man\- cases no less than four or five different kinds being 

 found in the same specmien, and so exquisite an anatomical and histological structure, could be thus 

 characterized. And I do not see the reason wh\- it should be wrong to use the same classificatorx' 

 principles for the lower animals which have proved good for the higher and more perfectionnes animals. 

 Upon the whole, I do not see that in all the critical remarks against my classification set forth 

 by Profes.sors Agassiz, Bell and Lambert there is any real, principal objection. I have no doubt 

 that those who will take the trouble to make a careful stud>' of the pedicellariie in the different forms, 

 especially the regular Echini of the families Ec/u'itider. Toxopiir.iisfidcr and Echinometrido'. and not be 

 satisfied with literary criticisms alone without a stud\- of the objects themselves, will agree with at 

 least the main results reached by me. The fact that Dr de Meijere and, above all. Professor Doder- 

 lein after his extensive studies accept m^• results in the main points makes me confident that my 

 method, which is, indeed, to take all the characters a\ailable for systematic purposes into consideration, 

 and to find out b\- a comparative stud\- of as many forms as possible the systematic value of the 

 different characters, will ultimateh' prove the right one. 



' nelas^e ^ Herouard. Traite de Zoologie concrete. III. p. 23S, 245. 



4* 



