I22 ECHINOIDEA. II. 



group (except capensis\ in which the apical system and vertex is decidedly posterior. Further the 

 globiferous pedicellarise differ from those of the other species, as pointed out above. It might perhaps 

 not be unreasonable to regard the form of globiferous pedicellariae in this species as a more primitive 

 form which has developed into the form found in the /ra^Yw-group. The fact that in this group some- 

 times pedicellariae occur with two endteeth instead of one (PI. XIV. Fig. 24) might then perhaps be a 

 case of atavism. The central position of the apical system likewise seems to indicate that this species 

 is more primitive than the fragilis-grovip. Accordingly I think it reasonable to regard this species 

 as the representative of a special group, besides the fragilis- and canalifems-gronp. 



The question now arises, if these three or four groups must be regarded as distinct genera. 

 Gray (Cat rec. Ech.) groups the species in nearly the same way as is here shown to be the natural 

 grouping; he regards the groups as subgenera, proposing for the canahferus-group the name Nina, 

 for the fragilis-gronp (to which S 1 . gibberiilus is incorrectly referred) the name Brisaster, whereas the 

 name Schizaster s. str. is retained for S. (Moira) atropos. The species Philippii is referred to the genus 

 Tripylus, which is certainly not correct (see Echinoidea of the Swedish South Polar Expedition); but 

 on the other hand it is certainly not correct either to regard this species as a typical Schizaster, a 

 Southern representative* of S. fragilis as is done by Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 612). Fourtau (Op. cit.) 

 emphasizes that his canaliferus- and fragtlis-group must really be considered only as groups of species 

 within the genus Schizaster, not as sections -- et surtout je me garde bien de donner un nom a ces 

 groupes, car ils passeraient vite a 1'etat de genre pour certains taxonomistes "plus desireux d'obteuir 

 des coupes nouvelles que d'etudier a fond les variations d'un type. Though I agree that when a 

 separate name of a group of species is proposed it will easily be made to rank as a generic name, I 

 think the present case is so distinct that it is necessary to give the groups names as subgenera ; I 

 would even not be very horrified in seeing them made genera. Otherwise Gray has, as said above, 

 already given such names, viz. Nina for the canaliferus-group, Brisaster for the fragilis-gro\\p. The 

 latter name is excellent and must be taken into use again; on the other hand the name Nina, 

 which is quite without meaning, need not be used for the canaliferus-group ; this group may simply 

 be termed Shizaster s. str. -- For -5*. Philippii the name Tripylaster n. subgen. may be proposed. 

 If the species gibberuhis and Savignyi are rightly ma'de a separate group the name Paraster Pomel 

 will be kept by it 



Unfortunately the name Schizaster is perhaps not rightly assigned to this genus. The type, of 

 the genus Schizaster, established by L. Agassiz in his Prodrome d'une Monogr. des Radiaires is 

 5". atropos, now named Moira. This name is a changing of the original name Moera Michelin, which 

 was preoccupied for a Crustacean. Strictly speaking Moira is the same name as Moera and ought 

 not to be used for the Echinid, which ought then to have its original name Schizaster if not the 

 yet older name Echinocardium Gray! In his paper in Annals of Philosophy* 1825 Gray establishes 

 the genus Echinocardium with E. atropos as the first species. According to a strict interpretation of 

 the rules of nomenclature the name Echinocardium ought to be used for Moira atropos etc. and 

 the names Schizaster Ag., Moera Mich, and Moira A. Ag. would be synonyms thereof. Instead of 

 Schizaster the name Ova Leske (van Phelsum) ought to be used, Gray (loc. cit) naming only the 

 species canaliferus under this genus. Instead of Echinocardium in its present use a new name ought 



