158 



ECHINOIDEA. II. 



wards. The petals are not deepened. The apical system is somewhat anterior. The frontal tubefeet 

 are small, without a large sucking disk, whereas in a specimen of lyrifera, var. capensis from St. 142, 

 scarcely half that size, the frontal tubefeet are larger and provided with a distinct disk. The peri- 

 petalous fascicle is not reenteringly curved between the petals, but almost round as in Houiastcr. 

 Tubercles and spines are comparatively large, within the peripetalous fasciole especially there are 

 rather conspicuous primary tubercles scattered among the small ones in all the interambulacra. The 

 pedicellarise are rather sparingly developed, except the ophicephalous ones, which differ considerably 

 from those of other ^mj^/j/j-species (PI. XVIII. Figs. 7, 8, 14). The basal part is quite rudimentary, as 

 in the Br. atlantica described below; the blade is rather elongate, the outer part distinctly narrower 

 than the articular surface (in Br. atlantica the outer part is as broad as or broader than the articular 

 surface — PI. X\^III. Fig. 10). Otherwise only triphyllous and very small tridentate pedicellarise were 

 seen, which do not show characteristic features. — That this specimen does not belong to Br. lyrifera 

 var. capensis is certain. If it be a true Brissopsis^ it is a new species; but perhaps it is no Brissopsis 

 at all — it reminds one very much of Alefalia. But I shall not tr\- to decide to which genus and 

 species it realh- belongs, only state that it is not Br. lyrifera. 



The statement of the occurrence of Br. lyrifera at Greenland dates from <;Rev. of Ech. (p. 96), 

 where among other localities are named < Great Britain; Greenland, Clyde (Forbes)?. This statement is 

 reproduced by the later authors, but no new original statements are added. This seems strange, as 

 the marine fauna of Greenland has been much investigated, especially by Danish naturalists; but 

 among the vast collections from Greenland in our Museum there is not a single specimen of Br. lyri- 

 fera. It seems also rather curious that Forbes is given as the authority for the locality «Greenland; 

 but P'orbes never was in Greenland |I suppose that E. Forbes is meant). When further it is noticed 

 that the locality «Greenland» is placed among the British localities; that it is separated from the 

 following locality «Clyde>. b}- a connna only, whereas the other British localities named are separated by 

 a semicolon; that there is on the Clyde a town named Green: then it seems not quite unreasonable to 

 suppose that this < Greenland is only a small locaHty on the Clyde. To be sure, Mr. W. T. Gibson, 

 Curator of the Biological Station at Millport, asserts that no locality of that name is found on the 

 Clyde; but there may have been at the time, when F~orbes dredged there; or there may have been 

 some mistake with the label (the si^ecimens are not found an\- longer). Professor Bell told me, on 

 my pointing out this matter before him, that he was quite of nn- opinion. However this may be, the 

 occurrence of Br. lyrifera at Greenland caniu)t be regarded as an ascertained fact, before the species 

 is recorded from there through new researches. That it will be found at the East Coast of vSouth 

 Greenland seems rather probable, since, as has been shown by the «Ingolf:>-Expedition, it occurs in 

 the Denmark Strait. 



From the East Coast of North America Br. lyrifera is recorded from numerous localities (vRe- 

 vi.sion of Echini*, <'Blake*-Echinoidea, Verrill (426), Rath bun (335, 336), Clark (Echinoderms of 

 Portorico) '. I have examined rather many of these specimens (especially in the U. S. National Museum 

 and the Museum of Yale College) and found them to belong to three distinct species, whereas not a 

 single true Br. lyrifera was found among them. I think then, it will not be found quite unreasonable 



■ Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Comiii. 1900. II. 



