Trof. P. Martin Duncan — On Galerites alhogalerus, Lamlc. 15 



good forms, and the result has been that I diifer very considerably 

 with all previous writers except Loven, and with him upon one main 

 point. In fact, until I had completed my examination, I had perfectly 

 orthodox and at the same time highly erroneous views regarding 

 this common type. 



Admitting the variability of the species in its relative height, 

 I find that in well-preserved specimens the actinal surface or base is 

 not flat. The test rests on a downward projection anterior to the 

 peristome (mouth) and on a rounded surface between this and the 

 anus. The result is that the peristome (in the natural position of 

 the test) is higher than the points on which the base rests. The 

 fossil is unsteady. 



The statement that there are '• internal auricles supporting a pen- 

 tagonal masticating apparatus," made by Dr. Wright, is one of the 

 most extraordinary fictions ever imagined. I find that there are 

 no teeth at all, no masticating apparatus, and no internal auricles. 

 There are ten buccal plates, two to each ambulacrum, placed close to 

 the edge of the peristome side by side, and forming a nearly perfect 

 circle. These are to be seen in several specimens at the British 

 Museum and in Bowerbank's specimen. These plates are figured by 

 Dr. Wright (op. cit. pi. 1. fig. 5) as jaws and teeth in situ. 



Their inner margins are sharpened by him more than they really are. 

 Ifind on the free surface of these plates an ornamentation of a few miliary 

 tubercles and the plates are blunt there and slightly concave. By 

 scraping away the chalk above them that is within the peristome, it 

 can be shown that the buccal plates are rather thick as well as broad. 

 The things called teeth by Forbes, and copied by Dr. Wright, are 

 buccal plates with portions of chalk attached to them cut into the 

 elongate and sharp condition with tlie clearing out knife. The 

 points looked upwards into the cavity of the test and had they been 

 those of teeth, the animal would have masticated its own internal 

 tissues. An Echinoid with ten teeth pointing inwards would be a 

 phenomenon. 



When the buccal plates are in position, the peristomial opening is 

 small, and it is evident that there would not be room for any jaws 

 to come down it and act efficiently. 



What Mr. Stokes saw, and described in the Transactions of the 

 Geological Society, were buccal plates and not teeth, and all the 

 figures of teeth by Forbes are inventions. 



There are no auricles to be seen in any specimen I have examined, 

 and a beautiful section of a perfect test, made at my solicitation by 

 Dr. Woodward, and which is in the British Museum, proves that 

 nothing like auricles ever existed. I have carefully washed away 

 the chalk from the neighbourhood of the peristomial plates, and 

 within the test of other specimens, and have not found anything of 

 "the nature of internal auricles supporting a pentagonal masticating 

 apparatus." Figures of the auricles have been drawn, and from 

 casts in flint. There are pyriform projections in the position of 

 auricles. Now in a cast a projection is a depression in the original, 

 and an impression of the cast proves the auricular idea to be as 



