384 MR PATRICK GEDDES AND MR FRANK E. BEDDARD 
O. F. MULLER. VALENTIN. 
P. globifera = P. gemmiforme. 
P. triphylla = P. ophiocéphale. 
P. tridens = P. tridactyle. 
This has been already pointed out by Mr W. P. SiapeEn,* who decides in 
favour of retaining the nomenclature introduced by O. F. MULLER on the ground 
of priority. We prefer, however, on the whole, to use VALENTIN’s names, both 
on account of their general acceptance and because they were the first names 
applied to pedicellarize after the determination of their real nature; MULLER’s 
nomenclature refers to pedicellariz considered as a genus of parasitic animals. 
In 1842 Erp.t gave an account of the pedicellariz of Hchinus saxatilis 
(=E. lividus). He described two chief forms of these organs the “ klappen 
apparate” and “zangen apparate.” The former appear to correspond to the 
gemmiform and ophiocephalous pedicellariz, and the latter to the tridactyl. 
Both his figures and his descriptions, however, are mysterious and unsatisfac- 
tory, yet the best text-books of zoology, such as that of GEGENBAUR, still use 
his figures. 
Duvernoy { was the next author who took up the subject of pedicellarie. 
In his paper he first of all gives an excellent reswmé of what had been done up 
to his time. The main point which he established was the fact that the 
different kinds of pedicellariz, both in star-fish and in sea urchins, are character- 
istic of different species. His figures of pedicellariz are good, but there are no 
details of structure given. 
After DuvEerNoy, HerapatH§$ and PErriER|| described and figured a great 
variety of pedicellariz of sea urchins and starfish. PERRIER is especially to be 
noted as having greatly extended the original discovery of DuvErNoy, that the 
pedicellarize of different species differ. He proved that different genera are 
characterised by their own special varieties of pedicellariz, the species making 
up each genus differing but slightly from each other in the forms of their 
pedicellariz. His figures, however, are in many cases not very good. He | 
again does not figure or describe, except in a very general way, the anatomy of 
the soft parts. 
* “On a Remarkable Form of Pedicellaria and the Functions performed thereby, together with General 
Observations on the Allied Forms of this Organ in the Echinide,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Aug. 1881. 
+ “Ueber den Bau der Organe welche an der aiisseren Oberfliiche der Seeigel sichtbar sind, 
Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 1842, p. 45. 
t “ Memoire sur l’analogie de composition et sur quelques points de organization des Echinodermes,” 
Memoires de l'Institut de France, 1849, vol. xx. p. 611. 
§ “On the Pedicellarie of the Echinodermata,’ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 1865, 
p- 185. 
\| “« Recherches sur les Pédicellaires et les Ambulacres des Asteries et des Oursins,” Ann. des Sciences 
Naturelles, 1869 and 1870. 
