266 HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ECHINI. 



In the original description, it is said that this species is closely allied to fla- 

 vescens and pennatifidum, "the only differences worthy of note being in the form 

 and position of the anal system and subanal fasciole." There is reason to 

 doubt whether these differences, in such variable features, are really constant, 

 and I would now lay stress rather on the form and tuberculation of the test. 

 The difference from pennatifidum is rather marked and the relationship with 

 that species is not very close. The resemblance to flavescens is more evident but 

 the absence of primary tubercles above the ambitus on the posterior part of 

 the test serves to distinguish dubium at once. There is no doubt that mor- 

 tenseni of the Mediterranean and laevigaster of Florida are the two species most 

 closely allied to this Japanese form. But as stated above (p. 264) it is probable 

 that more abundant material will serve to bring out the distinctions more 

 clearly. The second of the Albatross specimens of dubium is only 16 mm. long, 

 but it shows all the species characters very well. 



The holotype is from Station 5047. It is of interest to note that this 

 species lives at a much greater depth than the other Japanese species of Echino- 

 cardium. Indeed, no other member of the genus is recorded from a depth greater 

 than 150 fms. 



Station 4965. Off Hiro Misaki Light, Honshu Island, Japan. Bott. temp. 

 49.4°. 191 fms. Dk. gn. gy. s., sh. 



Station 5047. Off Kinka San Light, Honshu Island, Japan. Bott. temp. 

 49.6°. 107 fms. Dk. gy. s., brk. sh., p. 



Two specimens. 



Echinocardium capense. 



Mortensen, 1907. Ingolf Ech., pt, 2, p. L37, 



This species is as yet known only from the vicinity of the Cape of Good Hope, 

 and eastward along the South African coast, at depths of 31-150 fms. It seems 

 to be very well characterized by the remarkably small area enclosed by the 

 internal fasciole. 



Echinocardium pennatifidum. 



Norman, 1867. Rept. Brit. AjBBOe., 37. p, 440. 



Although Mr. Agassiz gives the correct page reference to the original 

 designation of this species, both Bell and Mortensen ignore it and refer to the 

 publication of the following year. It may be objected that the original publi- 



