Canon A. M. Norman on Cucumavia Montagui. 355 



irregular forms ; c, d, e s])icula with openings as in C. Mon- 

 tagui, c and r7 siiowing al.-o the characteristic nodulation. 



Mr, Pace suggests that the nodulous spicules had got into 

 my })reparation by accident. This might have been, but was 

 not the case, as is proved by the fact that whereas the spicule 

 fig. 6 d is one from my original slide of sjncula of speci- 

 men B, fig. 6 e is drawn from a mounting of the spicula of the 

 specimen fig. 5 which was sent to me by Mr. Pace himself ; 

 but only very few of these spicula are present in either 

 specimen. 



But while Mr. Pace would reject these nodulous spicula 

 with four perforations he substitutes for them another; and 

 says that in specimens similar to my B and C he has found 

 " quite typical ' tables/ which being few in number are easily 

 overlooked.'" They have been overlooked by myself though 

 diligently sought for, since, if found, they would form an 

 entirely new feature in the spiculation of Cucumarians, for 

 theie would exist two distinct types of primary body-spicules 

 in a species, a feature hitherto unknown. May I suggest to 

 him a source of possible error ? When I was at Plymouth in 

 Sept. 1903, two species were brought to me as the two 

 Cucumarians which besides C. luctea were known at the 

 Station. On examining one of these and boiling down the 

 spicule I found the species was no Cucumarian, but Phyllo- 

 jjhorus Drummondi, W. Thompson, with its characteristic 

 " tables." Perhaps spicules of this species have by some 

 rccident got into Mr. Pace's mounting ; and it is qyqu possible 

 that he may have employed the very test-tube in which I had 

 boiled the Lhyllopjhorus and which may not have been cleaned 

 with sufficient care *. 



The question remains, Are the specimens which I described 

 as B and C a mature form, and, if so, are they referable to 

 Cucumaria soxicola of Brady and Robertson ? Let us take 

 the last part of this question tirst. I did not neglect to take 

 G. saxicola into consideration when engaged on my former 

 paper ; and I wrote to Professor Brady to enquire if he would 

 allow me to see the type or a mounting of its spicula, but he 

 no longer had either in his possession. Examining his 

 description and figures, I came to the conclusion that it was 

 not the same as my B and C : 1st, because of the presence 

 of the stellate-formed upper spicules ; and 2nd, because I saw 

 no reason to regard it as the same species as my specimens, 



* I left a mounting of the spicules of Phijllophorus Drummondi at the 

 Station together with the speciuieo itself, but I see that the species is 

 not inserted in the list of Plunouth Echinodernis published at the cud of 

 last year (Jouru. Mariue J>iol. Assoc, vol. vii. p. 2U6J. 



