ECHINOIDEA. II. 



flavescens. The tubefeet of the odd anterior ambulacrum seem to be very well developed. The pedi- 

 cellariae differ very essentially from those of pennatifidum ; they are, indeed, quite like those of flave- 

 scens, only the rostrate pedicellarise are a little more slender than in that species (PL XVII. Figs. 

 36, 46), and I find here the form of tridentate pedicellarise figured by Koehler (Sur les Echinocard. 

 de la Mediterr. PL 4. 13) as characteristic of flavescens, a form which I have, otherwise, not found in 

 that species (PL XVII. Fig. 14, comp. above p. 135). Ophicephalous pedicellarise were not found. The 

 spicules do not present peculiar features ; I do not find any large spicules just below the disk. 



From what is here pointed out I think it is proved beyond doubt that this specimen is not 

 pennatifidum, and the presence of that species in the Mediterranean thus remains problematic, no 

 other instances of its occurring there being recorded, as far as I know. 



From the Zoological Station at Naples I have received under the name of Ech. mediterraneum 

 two (smaller) specimens, which evidently belong to the same species as the above described specimen 

 from Tamaris. In one of them the labrum does not reach beyond the first adjoining ambulacral plates, 

 in both of them only two pairs of pores are enclosed by the subanal fasciole. Otherwise they agree with 

 the specimen from Tamaris. In the larger of them (34""" in length) one large tubefoot of the anterior 

 petals (posterior series) is developed within the fasciole, in the smaller specimen (32" in length) no 

 such larger tubefeet are as yet developed within the internal fasciole. There is a faint violet tint 

 seen on the abactinal spines. 



After all I think it must be admitted that this form must be regarded as a separate species, 

 which I propose to name Echinocardium intermedium n. sp. 1 It is nearly related to Ech. flavescens, 

 and, especially, Ech. capense, whereas it is not more nearly related to Ech. pennatifidum or mediterraneum, 

 to which two species the specimens known to me have wrongly been referred. It differs from flavescens 

 mainly in having no larger tubercles on the lateral and posterior interambulacra on the abactinal 

 side, and those of the anterior interambulacra are much smaller than in flavescens. Further the 

 rostrate and large tridentate pedicellariae differ not inconsiderably from those of flavescens. For the 

 larger specimens it may perhaps prove a constant feature that the large tubefeet of the anterior petals, 

 posterior series, continue within the fasciole, which is not the case even in the largest specimens of 

 flavescens. If other constant characters are to be found distinguishing it from flavescens cannot be stated 

 from the present scarce material. From Ech. capense it is distinguished mainly by its much larger 

 internal fasciole, and the shape of the test which is much more like flavescens, without the almost 

 saddlelike depression of the apex, so characteristic of capense. Regarding the pedicellarise it is to be 

 remarked that their triphyllous pedicellarise differ rather considerably, being as in flavescens in the 

 Mediterranean species, with only a few serrations at the lower end of the edge of the blade, whereas 

 in capense they are serrate almost along the whole edge of the blade. Ophicephalous pedicellariae are 

 known only from capense, while globiferous and large tridentate pedicellarise are not known from 

 this latter species. A comparison of the number of pores in the petals cannot be made, as only small 

 specimens of capense have been examined, and only larger specimens of intermedium. 



1 Possibly it will prove identical with the A. roseus Forbes; in that case this name will, of course, have to be re- 

 tained and the name intermedium will be dropped as a synonym thereof. For the present it is, however, necessary to give 

 the species a new name, since it is still uncertain which species is really the A. roseus Forbes. 



