HCHINOIDKA. II. ,q 



lo refer tliein all to the lii,>jli form. Only in ca.se all the species of v. I'helsnni were beyond doubt 

 of the high form, woukl it be necessary to change the names Echinocyamus and Fibularia; bnt this 

 is so far from being the case that perhaps the\' all realh' l)elong to the flat form. Accordingly it 

 would not only be a ver\' unfortunate thing to change the names EchinocycDiiiis and h'ibnlaria, but it 

 would even be wrong and coutrarv to the rules of priority- to do so. It nui\ be considered as certain 

 that EchinocyaniHs piisilliis is among the species: of \- a n Phelsnm, since some of liis specimens 

 came from tlie Adriatic, and if I^ambert is right — as I think he is — in regarding all the 14 

 species of Ecliinocyamns figured b\- \an Phelsum as one species only, they are all Echinocyamus 

 pjisilliis. I agree that from the three last columns of the plates in van Phclsum's old book and — 

 perhaps — from some of the descriptions it might seem to be the high form which is represented; 

 but the two first columns in any case resemble much better the flat form, and above all the locali- 

 ties given by van Phelsum prove definitely that the\' cannot represent the high form, because onK- 

 flat forms occur in the Adriatic and at America. It is then only the bad drawing which makes tlie 

 figures in the three last columns (sidewiew, endview and from below) look like the high form. Put to 

 ascribe such importance to some evidenth tjuite impossible figures as to found thereupon a most 

 unhapp>' change of names universally used, against the (in this case) quite certain deduction from the 

 localities, seems to me unjustifiable, and I must protest against such a proceeding with all my force. 



Suborder Meridosternata. 



Fam. Urechinidae. 



19. Urechinus naresianus A. Ag. 



PI. VI. Fijjs. 10—11. ri. VII. Figs. 6, H; 13, 15. PI. IX. Figs. 4, S—g, 15—16, iS. 21. 26, 29-39. 



A. Agassiz: Challenger -Echinoidea. p. 146. PI. XXIX. Figs, i — 4. PI. XXX. XXX a. Figs, i — 4. 

 PI. XXXIX. Figs. 29— 30. PI. XL. Figs. 56— 58. — Blake -F;chinoidea. p. 52. PI. XX\'I. 1—3. — Panamic 

 Deep-Sea F'chini. p. 156. PI. 58. 5. 60.4 — 5. 74.6 — S. — Loven: On Pourtalesia. p. 90. PL \'III. 56. PI. 

 XXI. — Duncan: Revision of the genera of Echinoidea (132) p. 211 — 12. — Bell: Echinoderma found 

 off the Coast of South Africa. I. F^chinoidea. (Marine Investigations in South Africa. III. 1904.) p. 173. 



The structure of the test of this highh' interesting Echinoid has been so well worked out b\- 

 Agassiz and Lo\'en that ver\- little can be added in this respect. I only wish lo call attention to 

 the fact that the inner edge of the plates round the peristome is somewhat thickened (Fig. 3) as 

 pointed out for t"vj/(YV//««,v by Agassiz. (Comp. e. g. PI. 78. 5. Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.) The irregularity 

 in the specimen figured PI. VI. Fig. 10, the plate II. b. 3 having two pores, 4 none, is worth noticing, 

 though, of course, only an individual abnormalit\'. 



The rich material from the Ingolf includes some \oung specimens, so that I am able to give 

 some information of the changes due to growth in this species. 



The youngest specimen taken by the Ingolf is 3""" in length. Unfortunately it is impossible 

 to find out the relations of the apical system in this small specimen; on account of its extreme frag- 

 ility I have been unable to remove the spines completely without destroying the test, and I have not 



