98 FOSSIL ECHINI OF THE WEST INDIES. 



occurred. I have not seen a specimen, but Cotteau described this species 

 from the Eocene (?) of Matanzas, Cuba. The material is in his own 

 collection. 



Lambert (1915, Mem. Soc. d'Agric. de l'Aube (Troyes), vol. 79, p. 31) 

 claims that Cotteau's Breynia cubensis is not a true Breynia, but belongs 

 rather with Brissoides. He notes that a specimen of the genus Brissoides 

 was found at "Dodger's Bay," Antigua, and that it differs from cubensis 

 in that the latter has fewer but larger tubercles, more equal petals, less 

 tapering and non-flexuous. The specimen which Lambert describes, 

 without specific name, is very imperfectly preserved ; it was collected by 

 J. W. Gregory, 1899, collection of British Museum. 



[Note. — In a paper on fossil Echini from northeastern Mexico, a number 

 of Cotteau's West Indian species are recorded as occurring in Mexico. This 

 paper by Kew (in R. E. Dickerson and W. S. W. Kew, 1917. The fauna of a 

 medial Tertiary formation and the associated horizons of northeastern 

 Mexico. Proc. California Acad. Sci., ser. 4, vol. 7, pp. 125-156, pis. 17-26a) 

 came to my attention too late to be considered otherwise than by this note. 

 The species referred to are beautifully figured, and a locality is given but 

 no description. What Kew calls Clypeaster cf. concavus Cotteau has petals 

 too flaring and wide open, and the test is proportionately too wide to be 

 closely compared to concavus. His Clypeaster cubensis Cotteau, though I 

 have not seen specimens of the species, appears to be too flattened above 

 the border and has petals too short proportionately to be referred to that 

 species. His Agassizia clevei Cotteau is evidently very close to the species 

 here (p. 70) separated from Cotteau's clevei as A. inflata, sp. nov. What 

 Kew calls Schizaster clevei Cotteau differs so radically in side view from 

 clevei that it seems it can not be referred to that species. Kew's Macropneus- 

 tes antillarum Cotteau is much higher posteriorly and more rounded margin- 

 ally than the only specimen of the species that I have seen. It is very 

 doubtful if Kew's identification is correct.] 



