KCHINOIDEA. II. 



species they are dealing with, on the chance of finding out that their localities were not given correctly 

 in a classical work written by the most celebrated authority. 



In the preceding instance, it is true, careful perusal of the text might have raised a doubt in 

 the mind of the student; but under Pliormosoma uranus there is nothing said in the text about doubtful 

 identification. On this case I have written (Parti, p. 58): In the description of Pliormosoma uranus 

 Agassiz uses the expression .the only specimen collected, but nevertheless puts down for it two 

 different localities, St. 6 and St. 78. This riddle I am able to solve. In (the) British Museum a quite 

 small Echinothurid is found from Chall. St. 78 determined by Agassiz as Ph. uranus?? On this 

 basis .St. 78 is named without any reservation as a locality of /%. uranus (comp. Culvtria gracilis 

 and Kchi-nosoniti tniu<"\. With regard to this specimen, it is otherwise very badly preserved, and not a 

 single pedicellaria is kept. It is quite indeterminable, and consequently it cannot be considered to be 

 correct to figure details of this specimen under the name of Phormosoinu uranus (without any inter- 

 rogation), as has been done by Agassiz (Chall. Ech. PI. XVIII. c. fig. 12). I think it cannot be denied 

 that my remark is quite true and very moderate and riot < entirely out of place. But I might have 

 added that by this incorrect mention of Station 78 the bathymetrical distribution of the species becomes 

 1000 1525 fathoms, as, indeed, is definitely stated in the list on p. 311, whereas the species was then 

 really known only from a depth of 1525 fathoms. Since I merely wish here to justify my personal re- 

 marks I will not in this place allude to further instances of this kind to be found in the Report on the 

 Challenger- Echiiioidea, but I cannot pass from this subject without suggesting that the personal remarks 

 of Professor Agassiz, while not more moderate in their expression, are perhaps more out of place than mine. 

 To pass to another criticism by Professor Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini p. 18): Dr. Morten- 

 sen harps on the fact that a great many species of Cidaris as well as other Echinoids have been proved 

 by him to belong to other genera than those to which they were referred by others, and thus he 

 constantly finds a fine demonstration of the trustworthiness of the statements hitherto found in the 

 literature with regard to the occurrence and distribution of these animals! Once given his genera, 

 the rest naturally follows, and we have nothing left of what has preceded. This again might seem 

 very foolish in me, but the facts are really not quite those that might be inferred from this remark by 

 Professor Agassiz. What I actually wrote in this connection is as follows (Parti, p. 171 172); Thus 

 I have established the fact that no less than 8 different species, of which, moreover, only one belongs 

 to the genus Dorocidnris, have in the literature been wrongly referred to I), papillata, viz. Dorocidaris 

 nuda, Trrtocidaris annulata, spinosa, Cidaris ajfinis, baculosa and another O<fom-species (Chall. St. 204), 

 Stcreocidoris Lorioli and another S'tereocidaris-species (Chall. St 310) a fine demonstration of the 

 trustworthiness of the statements hitherto found in the literature etc. It will, I hope, be conceded that 

 this remark is not quite so foolish as would appear from Professor Agassiz' presentation of it. The 

 main thing in systematic reports, lists of collections etc. is, so far as I can see, the right identification 

 of the species; whether the species be referred to one genus or another is thus far of secondary 

 importance and may be a matter of discussion among specialists. But the species are the units with 

 which science has to work. Wrong identifications of species must cause all later work founded on 

 these identifications to be erroneous and, indeed, lost labour. As I have found that 8 different species 

 had been wrongly mentioned in literature under the name of Dorocidaris papill-ata. I thought and still 



