286 Miscellayieous. 



Since C. papMata Leske is merely a substitute for the pre-Linnean 

 andnou-bionominal '^Cidaris Mammillata Mauri" oiKlQin, Lambert 

 also may be claimed as a supporter of this view. Happily, then, our 

 four tweutieth-century authorities seem to be essentially in agree- 

 ment with the course that the rule imposes. It is with the next 

 step that trouble begins. 



It is generally admitted that C'idaris papillata Leske is a 

 composite species. Leske himself (1778, pp. 125 et sqq.) divided it 

 into four varieties : I. major, Tab. vii. a, Tab. xxxix. f. 2 ; 11. minor. 

 Tab. vii. B, Tab. xxxvii. f. 3; III. spinis conoideis, a Scilla 

 tab, xxii. f. 1. 2, 3 delineata ; IV. spinis claviculatis. The last 

 includes only various fossils not regarded as truly characteristic. 

 The first three varieties were placed by Lamarck * in three fresh 

 species : I. Cidarites imperialis ; II. C. trihuloides ; III. C. hystria:. 

 Those references are on the whole accepted in A. Agassiz (1872, 

 'Revision,' pp. 151, 99, 105 respectively). Since Lamarck made 

 no other mention of Cidaris papillata, it seems to foUow that one 

 of his three species must fall into the synonymy of that species. 

 The obvious course would have been to take Yar. I. as the type of 

 C. pajnllata ; but, as things happened, the name papillata became 

 generally attached to a form that appears to represent C. hystrix. 

 Therefore it is safest to follow A. Agassiz and others in regarding 

 C. hystrix as a synonym of C. papillata ; otherwise there would be 

 terrible confusion. 



We have, then, three species representing the original C. papillata, 

 viz. I. imperialis Lam., II. tribuloides Lam., III. jjajyillata Leske. 

 The last of these must be regarded as carrying on the traditions of 

 the species, so to speak. Its holotype is the specimen from Sicilian 

 seas lisured as a " Hj-strix " by Scilla (1759, ' De corporibus marinia 

 lapidescentibus,' ed. 2, tab. xxii. f. 1, 2, 3). Now, as we have 

 already agreed that C. papillata Leske is the type of C'idaris, and 

 as we have now defined C. papillata Leske, it might seem that the 

 question was settled. Not so ! 



Let it be remembered that the reason for selecting C. papillata 

 as genotype of Cidaris was its alleged synonymy with Echinus 

 cidaris Linn. But if the species be thus divided, the hegemony 

 might be held to lie with that division which corresponded to 

 Echinus cidaris. Sere a totally different difficulty arises. Mortensen, 

 for instance, professing to follow Loven, identifies Echinus cidaris 

 with Cidarites baculosa Lam., and therefore regards the last- 

 mentioned species as the genotype, although no one has hitherto 

 supposed it to represent a Leskian species. This course, however, 

 depends on a misreading of Loven, who has discussed the meaning 

 of Echinus cidaris at great length f- Loven shows that the type- 

 specimen of Echinus cidaris Linn., 1752, belongs to Cidarites 

 baculosa Lam. We, however, are concerned not with this, but 

 with Echinus cidaris Linn., 1758. Here the diagnosis was altered 

 from " globoso-depressus " to " hemisphaerico-depressus," and 



* 1816. ' Hist. nat. Anim. sans Verlebres,' iii. pp. 54-56. 

 t 1887. " Echinoidea descr. by Linnfeus," Bih. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. 

 Hand], xiii. Afd. 4, no. 5, pp. 138 et syy. 



