ECHINOIDEA. II. 



the Berlin Museum and the specimens of the Challenger (St 142), I must fully join Professor 

 Doderlein herein. As pointed out by Doderlein this species recalls Sch. philippii very much by 

 the shape of the test; there is no distinct abactinal crest formed by the posterior interambulacrum, 

 the test slopes gently towards the posterior end. The posterior petals are a little shorter than in 

 Philippii, but above all it is very easily distinguished from that species by its globiferous pedicellarise, 

 which are like those of fragilis with a single, large endtooth. On the other hand it differs from fragilis 

 in the broad shape of the tridentate pedicellariae, besides by the shape of the test. It may be expressly 

 stated that I have found the pedicellariae of both the type specimen of S. capensis and of the Chal- 

 lengers-specimen quite like those figured by Doderlein (Op. cit. PI. L. Fig. 3). (PI. XIV. Figs. 33, 48) 

 In the former I have further found a short and broad pedicellaria (PI. XIV. Fig. 42) which may per- 

 haps represent the rostrate pedicellariae, which have otherwise not been found in this species. Ophice- 

 phalous pedicellarias have not been found either, and as in S. fragilis they will probably be found 

 only in quite small specimens. 



I have further seen in the British Museum two specimens, labelled Sch. fragilis, from the Cape 

 of Good Hope Government, (No. 29), evidently the specimens mentioned by Professor Bell (Op. cit), 

 who states on account of them that the species attains a much greater size here than in the Northern 

 waters. They are, however, certainly not Sch. fragilis, but belong to the canaliferus-grovL^, and pro- 

 bably represent a new species. The shape of the test is as in Sch. canalifcrus, 'and the pores of the 

 frontal ambulacrum are arranged in double series as in that species. I have found only rostrate pedi- 

 cellarise, both -specimens being almost naked; they differ considerably from those of canaliferus, being 

 much less elongated and with quite smooth edges; the blade is curved in the usual way, a little 

 widened at the point, which is closely serrate (with ca. 16 teeth); the basal part is rather narrow 

 (PL XIV. Fig. 30, comp. with PI. XIV. Fig. 26 which represents the corresponding form of pedicellarise 

 from Sch. canaliferus}. The spicules (PI. XIV. Fig. 38. a c) likewise differ very considerably from those 

 of canaliferus; they are of two kinds: small, rounded, fenestrate plates, and numerous simple rods of 

 the usual form, arranged in 3 4 longitudinal rows, the fenestrate plates occurring mainly between 

 these series. The rosette-plates as in canaliferus. By the double row of pores in the anterior ambu- 

 lacrum this form agrees with Sch. canaliferus and Savignyi alone. It is probably a new species; how- 

 ever, so long as S. Savignyi and the var. major Fourtau r are not sufficiently known as regards their 

 pedicellariae, I think it preferable not to establish it definitely as a new species -- the more so, as it 

 is itself insufficiently known as regards the pedicellarise. 



Of the rather numerous recent species of Schizaster hitherto described three more belong to 

 the Atlantic (and the Mediterranean), viz. Sch. canalifems (L,mk.), orbignyamis A. Ag. and Edivardsi 

 Cotteau. I may take the occasion to give here some additional information of these species, which 

 may not prove superfluous. Schizaster canalifcrus is so well known and well described, especially by 

 Agassiz and Koehler, that I have only very little to add. It may be worth noticing that there are 

 found 5 6 large tubefeet on each side along the anal area, the first of these placed in the 5th ambu- 

 lacral plate; the subanal fascicle passes over the i2th ambulacral plate. (In S. fragilis there are 4 5 



i R. Fourtau: Contribution a 1'etude des Echinides vivant dans le Golfe de Suez. Bull. Inst. Egyptien. 4. Ser. 

 Vol. IV. 1904. 



