g KCHIXOIDKA. II. 



the scrobicular area. -Miliary tubercles are scarce, the priniar\- ones leavin.^ but little room for them. 

 Perhaps these curious small specimens represent merel\- an individual abnormality ; from the few- 

 small naked tests to hand it is impos.sible to decide the question. 



In his Note sur le genre Echinocyamus ' Lambert calls attention to the fact that the 

 species figured imder the uame of Echinocyanuts by van Phelsum' are not of the flat form to 

 wiiich tile name is now applied, but of the high form which is designated b>- the uame Filnilaria 

 Lamarck. Accordinglv these two names should be exchanged and used in a way contrary to what 

 has for so verv long been the general use. Pour rejeter mes conclusions il faudrait l\ la fois attribuer 

 seulemeut a Leske, et malgre lui, la paternite du genre Echinocyamus, prendre pour t\pe de ce genre 

 une forme que le savant commentateur de Klein n'\- rattachait que d'une facon accessoire et e.xclure 

 du genre Fibularia la seule espece authentique que Lamarck y ait placee. Triple resultat qui me 

 parait inadmissible. (Op. cit). Cotteau^ objects thereto that, .since the specimens of v. Phelsum 

 had been collected in America and the Adriatic Ciulf, flat forms must have been among his < species , 

 as vies Fibularia, propres a la mer des Indes, n'ont jamais ete rencontres sur les cotes de TAuierique 

 et encore moins dans le golfe Adriatique, ou abondent les Echinocyamus . Further, the figures given 

 by v. Phelsum elaissent assurement a desirer; dans le grossissement elles sont pour la plupart ren- 

 flees d'une maniere exageree . — Autant il nous parait necessaire, lorsque les faits sont positifs et 

 iudiscutables, de revenir an priucipe de I'anteriorite, qui doit toujours etre respecte, autant il serait 

 dangereux, quand la question est douteuse et sujette a controverse, d'adopter des modifications qui 

 n'auraient d'autre resultat que d'apporter une grande perturbation dans la nomenclature et de compliquer 

 la synonymic . Also de Loriol^ agrees with Cotteau in this question, and I for my part cannot 

 see, but that Cotteau and de Loriol are right. The figures of v. Phelsum are, indeed, so bad and 

 quite unlike either the flat or the high form, that the\- seem to me quite insufficient to support 

 such an extremely unhappy change of names. The fact that some of his specimens came from the 

 Adriatic is a proof that the flat form was among his <; species , and some of the figures also seem to 

 represent this flat form. The figures in the two first columns are indeed, in my opinion, much more 

 like the fiat forms (except the tw(j first figures, which are, however, still less like the elongated Fibu- 

 lar ia-ioxmi>)\ those in the third column (side views) are somewhat more like the high form, though 

 always very badly representing the true shape of the test of the high forms; the figures of the end- 

 views of all his 14 species>^ are so \-er\- nuich alike that it would be impossible to point out which belong 

 to the flat and whicli to the high form. Lambert, indeed, thinks ihal all his figures represent oulx 

 fourteen scarcely different specimens of a single species. After all it seems to me that the onh tiling 

 wiiich is certain in this ciuestion is, that the flat form is represented among \an Pii els urns species, 

 and l)eing from the Adriatic Sea (as van Plielsniu himself slates p. 36) it must e\cii l)e Ecliiiiocya- 

 miis pusillus, the only species found there. Whether tlie iiigli form is reall\- represented b\- an>- of his 

 species; must remain doubtful, though by a mere glance at his figures one might at first be induced 



' Hull. Soc. j.,'t:ol. de l'"raiicc-. 3 .Ser. XIX. iSgi. p. 749, 



' Brief aau Cornelius Nozeinan over de gewelw-slekken of Zee-Hgeln. 1774. 



J Paleoiitologie Fraucaise. Terrain Tertiairc. II. I'vchinides. 1S94. p. 349. 



4 Notes pour servir a I'etude des Kchinodernies. V. 1897. p. S. 



