some Species referred to if. 47 



Vanuxem to Eocidaris, and based on that species a more 

 detailed diagnosis of the genus. He did not discuss the 

 European species of Eocidaris. 



Quenstedt (1872-5, p. 162) compared Pakechinus verneu- 

 iliana [sic] King with his own Cidaris cocevus [sic], bat 

 did not regard them as Eocidaris. He mentioned Desor\s 

 reference of Cidaris heyserlingi Geinitz to Eocidaris, but 

 ])ointed out that the later figures showed the species to have 

 interambulacra of true Cidavid type. On p. 374 he alluded 

 to Desor^s reference of Cidaris rossica to Eocidaris because 

 of its lack of a basal terrace, but preferred with Trautschold 

 to leave it in Archceocidaris (^ — Echinocrinus). "According 

 to this criterion/' he said, apparently with a touch of sarcasm, 

 " the little remains of Cidaris IcBvispina and C. scrohiculata 

 .... should belong to Eocidaris.''^ These at any rate are 

 the only species that Qaenstedt left in Eocidaris in so far as 

 he accepted the genus at all. 



S. Loveu (1875, p. 42) gave a diagnosis based on Desor, 

 and included the following species in order : E. keyserlingi, 

 E. verneuiliana^ E. scrohiculata, E. Icevispina, E. drydenensis. 

 He placed the doubtful G. rossica and C. munsteriana in 

 Archceocidaris. Otherwise his remarks are not so helpful as 

 those of Quenstedt. 



A. Pomel (1883, p. 113) says that Eocidaris " Ne parait 

 difFerer (['Archceocidaris que par ses tubercules, dont la base 

 manque de la Crete concentrique au cercle scrobiculaire.^' 

 He thinks it may include the radioles known as Xenocidnris, 

 and mentions the following species in order : E. keyserlingi, 

 E. verneuiliana, E. scrohiculata, E. drydenensis. It is clear 

 that Pomel was acquainted neither witii the fossils themselves 

 nor with the remarks of Quenstedt. 



Tlie latter, at any rate, were known to W. Waagen (1885, 

 p. 818), who, however, erroneously says " Qaenstedt admits 

 only the carboniferous species in tlie genus Eocidaris.'''' 

 Waagen probably meant that Quenstedt removed from Eoci- 

 daris the Permian and possible Triassic species. Waagen 

 himself makes the curious and untenable suggestion that 

 G. grandceva Goldf. has hexagonal interambulacral plates 

 figured by Quenstedt, and had better be transferred to Eoci- 

 daris. In Cidaris forhesiana Kon., which he here refers to 

 Eocidaris, Waagen desciibes " a deeply crenulated collar" 

 round the mamelon, and in comparing tiiis species with 

 Eocidaris rossica he twice insists that the absence of crenela- 

 tion in that species is only apparent, and due to weatliering. 

 AVhy Waagen, in opposition to l)esor^s clear statement, 

 should have thought crenelation a character of Eocidaris is 

 nowhere explained. 



