=y. 
Species of Pseudoboletia. 109 
labelled “ P. granulata,” but this shall be changed to P. 
indiana. 
The other species was first described by Mr. Alexander 
Agassiz in 1863 as Boletia granulata, and was thus defined :— 
“Remarkable for its comparatively long spines. 'Tubercles 
uniform in size, very closely crowded together. Sandwich 
Islands.” Ten years later a rather more detailed description 
was published in the ‘Revision of the Echini’ (p. 455), 
which agrees very well with the specimens which, in the 
British Museum, have been hitherto labelled P. granulata, 
save that I should not say of them that “the test is depressed, 
quite flattened both above and below, slightly conical, regu- 
larly arched in profile,” as Mr. Agassiz’s type specimens from 
’ the Sandwich Islands appear to be. As the description given 
by the author of the species Boletia granulata corresponds, so 
far as it goes, with that given by M. de Loriol of Yozxo- 
pneustes (Pseudoboletia) indiana of Michelin, granulata and 
indiana would appear to be synonymous specific terms. 
To come to the second species: that there is such a second 
species the collection of the British Museum is sufficient to 
bear witness, and we have specimens which go some way 
towards indicating the area of its distribution, from the 
Philippines and from Torres Straits. With regard to this 
species there should be less chance of error than with the 
other : firstly, because the student will not here be dependent 
on the poor services of one who still has much to learn *, but 
will have a specimen named for him by one whose services 
were solicited by a great nation containing not a few com- 
petent zoologists, and who, as is well known, is the greatest 
living authority on the Echinoidea—well, the specimen 
named by Mr. Agassiz for the ‘ Challenger’ collection is 
called P. ndiana ; secondly, this species is not one that can be 
easily mistaken, on account of the curious dark brown patclies 
on its test and on its spines. The species with patches is 
identical with the P. ¢ndiana from the ‘ Challenger,’ and the 
description given in the ‘ Revision’ of P. indiana applies to the 
specimens so labelled by me in the British Museum. 
_ Lhave, I trust, made it clear that, in the absence of Michelin’s 
or of Agassiz’s type specimens of the two species, I had (a) 
the next best thing—a specimen named by Mr. Agassiz, the 
namer of one of the two recognized species; (@) that I had 
only the incomplete definitions of Michelin or Agassiz, in addi- 
tion to the information given in the ‘ Revision’ itself; or, in 
other words, I was, I submit, justified in taking the ‘ Re- 
vision’ as my guide. 
* Cf. P.Z. 5. 1880, p. 36. 
