239 
exsanguibus” I found the same figure named "'Echinus lapis spo- 
liatus a spinis,” as quoted by Jackson. But this figure (repre- 
sented in Fig. 1) is only an extremely bad representation of a 
fossil Echinoid, of which it can only be said with certainty that 
it is not Bothriocidaris, as it has doubtless two series of plates 
both in the ambulacra und interambulacra. On my communicating 
this fact to Prof. Jackson he sent me a photograph of the 
figure from the edition of 1618 (Fig. 2). It must certainly be 
VER lir Se, 
Fig. 2. The same 
figure, from the 
edition 1618. 
Fig. 1. Echinus lapis spoliatus 
a spinis. From Aldrovandus 
"De reliquis animalibus exsangui- 
; bus”. 1606. 
agreed that at first sight one would declare it really to represent 
Bothriocidaris. Still it is not so. The photograph sent me by 
Jackson showed also some of the neighbouring figures, and these 
Proved ,beyond the slightest doubt to be redrawn in a somewhat 
smaller scale from those of the edition 1606. That the same is 
the case with the figure of the "Echinus lapis spoliatus a spinis” 
Can then no more be doubted, in spite of some minor differences. 
Ås further evidence of this may also be mentioned the fact that 
the work quoted is an opus posthumus, Aldrovandus having died 
already in 1605. That a quite new figure should then have been 
introduced in the later edition, while all the rest remains identical, 
