KCHINOIDEA. II. 



think my remark on the trustworthiness of such statements quite justified. If I had made that remark 

 on account of the species Dorocidaris papillata having been referred to different genera, the above 

 cited remark of Professor Agassiz would have been justified; but the case is really quite the reverse. 

 It may not be superfluous to state that in consequence of the erroneous determinations in the case 

 cited above of Dorocidaris papillata. this species is stated to occur at La Plata, the Philippines and 

 in the Red Sea, whereas it is really known only from the Northern Atlantic (as far south as St. Paul 

 rocks) and the Mediterranean. -- A few other instances may be given: 



Echinus norvegicus is stated (Chall. Echini p. 117) to have been taken by the Challenger at 

 Cape Cod (St. 46 and 47), off the West coast of Patagonia (St 308) and off Japan (St. 232 and 235). The 

 alleged occurrence at Patagonia has proved of particular importance, causing this species to be ranged 

 among bipolar animals. Examination of the specimens in the British Museum (except those from 

 St. 235) gives the following result: The specimens from St. 46 and St. 47 are Echinus a/finis, those 

 from Patagonia (St. 308) are partly :Ec/nmis> magellanicus and partly another species of Echinus, 

 closely allied to Ech. clegans. (My examination does not enable me to state with certainty to which 

 species the latter belong, but it shows clearly that they are not Echinus nomegicus (= ticutus)}. The 

 specimens from St. 232 are probably Echinus hicidus, certainly not E. tiorvegicus and it seems a natural 

 inference that those from St. 235 are not /:. norvegicns either. It thus follows that there is not a 

 single specimen of E. norvcgicus among all the specimens referred to that species in the Challenger 

 Report. Consequently, the almost cosmopolitan distribution of this species and its bipolar nature both 

 of which have been deduced from the statements of that report can no longer be upheld. 



For Temnoplcunis Hardwickii the following localities are given in the Challenger Echinoidea 

 (p. 107): Kobi, Japan: Arafura Sea; off Yokohama and St. 192 (at the Kei Islands). I have examined 

 all the specimens in the British Museum and found them to be as follows: Kobi Tcinnoplcnrus 

 toreumaticus; Arafura Sea --a very young specimen, probably T. torcumaticus; St. 192 --a beautiful 

 specimen representing a new species of the very interesting genus Opcchinus, known hitherto only as 

 fossil --- one of the most interesting species taken by the Challenger* 1 . - Thus it is only the speci- 

 mens from Yokohama which are really T. Ifardivickii 2 . 



The preceding instances are perhaps enough to justify the epithet (Untrustworthy: as applied 

 to the older identifications made without microscopical examination of pedicellarise, spicules and other 

 parts. If further justification is demanded, numerous other instances of wrong identification will be 

 found pointed out in both parts of this work as well as in the work on the Siam-Echinoidea - 

 from the works of Professor Agassiz as well as from other, less famous authors. 



Professor Agassiz finds it childish to be constantly lamenting, as do Dr.MortensenandUr.de 

 Meijere, the loss of a specimen, if examined by the old method, necessary for the examination of the 

 test, and of the actinal and abactinal systems. Surely we cannot welcome a method which deliberately 

 saves a specimen in order to remain ignorant of its structure*. (Op. cit. p. 19.) I fully agree with Professor 

 Agassiz that it is the duty of the describer of new or imperfectly known species to elucidate as fully 



1 This species was described by me as Opechinns speclabilis in The Danish Expedition to Siani 1899-1900. Zoolo- 

 gical Results. II. Echinoidea. I. Mem. Acad. Sc. Copenhagen. 7. Ser. I. 1904, p. 94. Also, the Pleurechinus variabilis Doderlein 

 proved to belong to the genus Opechinus. 



2 Op. cit. p. 62. 



