jj5 echinoidea. II. 



the Berlin Museum and the specimens of the «Challenger» (St. 142), I must fully join Profes.sor 

 Doderlein herein. As pointed out by Doderlein this species recalls Sch. philippii very much by 

 the shape of the test; there is no distinct abactinal crest formed by the posterior interambulacruni, 

 the test slopes gently towards the posterior end. The posterior petals are a little shorter than in 

 Philippii, but above all it is ver}- easily distinguished from that species by its globiferous pedicellariae, 

 which are like those oi fragilis with a single, large endtooth. On the other hand it differs iroxa. fragilis 

 in the broad shape of the tridentate pedicellariae, besides by the shape of the test. It may be expressly 

 stated that I have found the pedicellariae of both the type specimen of S. capcnsis and of the « Chal- 

 lengers-specimen quite hke those figured by Doderlein (Op. cit. PI. L,. Fig. 3). (PI. XIV. Figs. 33, 48) 

 In the former I have further found a short and broad pedicellaria (PI. XIV. Fig. 42) which may per- 

 haps represent the rostrate pedicellarise, which have otherwise not been found in this species. Ophice- 

 phalous pedicellarise have not been found either, and as in S. fragilis they will probably be found 

 only in quite small specimens. 



I have further seen in the British Museum two specimens, labelled Scii. fragilis, from the Cape 

 of Good Hope Government, (No. 29), evidently the specimens mentioned by Professor Bell (Op. cit.), 

 who states on account of them that the species attains a much greater size here than in the Northern 

 waters. They are, however, certainly not Scli. fragilis, but belong to the ca nali/crzis-gr oup, and pro- 

 bably represent a new species. The shape of the test is as in Sc//. caiialifcriis, and the pores of the 

 frontal ambulacrum are arranged in double series as in that species. I have found only rostrate pedi- 

 cellaria;, both specimens being almost naked; they differ considerably from those of canalif erics, being 

 much less elongated and with quite smooth edges; the blade is curved in the usual way, a little 

 widened at the point, which is closely serrate (with ca. 16 teeth); the basal part is rather narrow 

 (PL XIV. Fig. 30, comp. with PI. XIV. Fig. 26 which represents the corresponding form of pedicellariae 

 from Sc/i. caiialfcriis). The sj^icules (PL XIV. Fig. 38. a— c) likewise differ very considerably from those 

 of canalif crus ; they are of two kinds: small, rounded, fenestrate plates, and numeroiis simple rods of 

 the usual form, arranged in 3 — 4 longitudinal rows, the fenestrate plates occurring mainly between 

 these series. The rosette-plates as in canalif ems. — By the double row of pores in the anterior ambu- 

 lacrum this form agrees with Sch. canaliferus and Saviguyi alone. It is probably a new species; how- 

 ever, so long as S. Savignyi and the var. major Fourtau ' are not sufficiently known as regards their 

 pedicellariae, I think it preferable not to establish it definitely as a new species — the more so, as it 

 is itself insufficiently known as regards the pedicellariae. 



Of the rather numerous recent species of Schizaster hitherto described three more belong to 

 the Atlantic (and the Mediterranean), viz. Sch. canaliferus (Lmk.), orbignyanus A. Ag. and Edzvardsi 

 Cotteau. I may take the occasion to give here some additional information of these species, which 

 may not prove superfluous. Schizaster canaliferus is so well known and well described, especially b\- 

 Agassiz and Koehler, that I have only very Httle to add. It may be worth noticing that there are 

 found 5 — 6 large tubefeet on each side along the anal area, the first of these placed in the 5th ambu- 

 lacral plate; the subanal fasciole passes over the 12th ambulacral plate. (In .S'. fragilis there are 4 — 5 



' R. Fourtau: ContrilnUioii a I'^tude dcs Echinides vivant dans le Golfe de Sue?.. I!\ill. Inst. Egyptien. 4. Ser. 

 Vol. IV. 1904. 



