ECHINOIDEA. II. 



139 



The differences pointed ont here: in the shape of the test, the form and size of the internal 

 fascicle, the peristome, the petals, the pores inclnded by the subanal fasciole, the tubercnlation and 

 the pedicellariae seem to me to leave no doubt that the Cape specimens hitherto referred to Ech. fla- 

 vescens make a well characterized species, certainly nearly related to flavescens, but easily distinguished 

 from this species. The differences in the shape of the test and the form of the peristome, to be sure, 

 do not appear very clearly from the measurements given below of capcnsc and some equal-sized 

 specimens oi flavescens; these characters also are probably rather variable, but in connection with the 

 other differences they get some value. The difference in the size of the internal fasciole is very clearh' 

 seen in these measurements. It will be remarked that the measurements of the fasciole in flavescens 

 are not quite in accordance with those given by Koehler (Echinocard. de la Mediterr. p. 182); this 

 may be due perhaps to these measurements being taken from the interior borders of the fasciole or 

 to the specimens from the Mediterranean having upon the whole the internal fasciole somewhat 

 smaller than the specimens from the northern seas. Nevertheless the measurements given by Koehler 

 also show the fasciole to be distinctly larger than in capense. 



Echinocardiuvi capense. 



Echinocardium flavescens. 



* The fasciole is measured from the outer borders of the fasciole, the length of the peristome is taken from the 

 point of the labrum. All the measurements are in mm. 



31. Echinocardium pennatifidum Norman. 



PI. II. Figs. 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17. PI. XVI. Fig. iS. PI. XVII. Figs, i, iS, 20, 24—26, 2S— 29, 32—33, 42. 44. 



Literature: Barrett: On two species of Echinodermata new to the Fauna of Great Britain. 

 Ann. Nat. Hist. 2. Ser. XIX. 1857. p. 33. PL VII. Fig. 2. a— c. (<i.AmpMdotus gibbosus» Ag). — A. M. Nor- 

 man: Last Report on Dredging among the Shetland Islands. Rep. Brit Assoc. 1868. p. 315. — Hodge: 

 Catalogue of the Echinodermata of Northumberland and Durham. Nat. Hist. Transact. Northumberl. 

 and Durham. IV. 1872. p. 142. PL V. Figs. 1—5. — Agassiz: Revision of Echini, p. in, 351. PL XX. 

 Figs. I — 2(?) — F. Jeffr. Bell: On a species of Echinocardium from the Channel Islands. Ann. Nat. 

 Hist. 5 Ser. XVII. 1886. p. 516— 17. Catalogue Brit. Echinoderms. p. 170. PL XVI. Fig. 5. — Hoyle: 



Revised List Brit. Echinoidea. p. 428. — Koehler: Echinides et Ophiures de I'sHirondelle* (229). 



Monaco. Ease. XII. 1898. p. 24. PL III. Fig. 7, IV. Figs. 9— 11. VIII. Figs. 40— 42. Sur la presence en 

 Mediterranee de I'Asterias rubens et de I'Echinocardium pennatifidum Norm. Zool. Anz. XXI. 1898. 

 p. 471— 4. Sur les Echinocardium de la Mediterranee (231). PL 4. Fig. 15. — Stanley W. Kemp: 

 Echinoderms of Ballynakill and Bofiu Harbours, Co. Galway, and of the Deep Water off the West 

 Coast of Ireland. Ann. Rep. Fish. Ireland. 1902—03. Pt. II. App. VI (1905I. p. 199. 



18* 



