

KUNGL. SV VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 58- NIO 9. 7 



In this specimen a single large globiferous pedicellaria was found, with a beautiful 

 limb on the stalk and the valves of the typical structure, without endtooth, as 

 figured b} T Döderlein (Echinoidea d. deutschen Tiefsee-Exped. Taf. 44, fig. 4 g, h). 



This specimen looks so different from the typical from as well as from any of 

 the varieties hitherto described, that it seems quite justifiable to make a new variety 

 of it, in spite of the scanty material. In fact, the characters, more especially the 

 very short radioles, would seem rather to indicate that it represents a separate species. 

 But, so long as no more material is available, it is evidently preferable to regard it 

 only as a new variety of this very variable species. I shall name it var. elegans n. var. 



It should be mentioned that under the spines surrounding the base of one of 

 the radioles was found a small white Planarian. Whether this is a case of symbiosis 

 or the Planarian came there more accidentally, can, of course, not be decided from 

 the present material alone. 



It may be useful to give here a suramary of the histor}'' of the name of this 

 species, which has caused such unusual trouble to Echinologists. The reason for all 

 the trouble lies in the fact that A. Agassiz referred the name bispinosa of Lamarck 

 to quite another species than that to which Lamarck applied the name Cidarites 

 bispinosa, and then gave such an imperfect description of his species that nobody 

 could recogn : ze it therefrom. It was only after H. L. Clark (in A. Agasstz & H. L. 

 Clark: Hawaiian a. o. pacific Echini. The Cidaridae) had reexamined the type- 

 specimen of Agassiz' Stephanocidaris bispinosa and pointed out some new, important 

 characters, that it became evident that the Cidarites bispinosa of Lamarck and the 

 Stephanocidaris bispinosa of Agassiz were two quite different species. For the latter 

 Döderlein (Uber Echinoidea v. d. Aru-Inseln, p. 242) pioposed the name Priono- 

 cidaris Agassizi, after having pointed out that the name Stephanocidaris was only a 

 Synonym of Goniocidaris. 



The true Cidarites bispinosa of Lamarck has hitherto been tenaciously named 

 Phyllacanthus annulifera by H. L. Clark, as was done by Agassiz in his »Revision 

 of the Echini». In my »Ingolf Echinoidea» I, p. 172, I pointed out, after having 

 examined the type-specimens in the Paris-Museum, that Lamarck's annulifera is 

 identical with the species figured by De Loriol (Description de trois espéces d'Échi- 

 nides app. a la fam. des Cidaridées 1873, Pl. III) as Cidaris annulifera Lamarck, 

 white the Phyllacanthus annulifera of Agassiz is the Cidarites bispinosa of Lamarck. 

 To this Clark objects (The Cidaridae, 1907 p. 189) that »A. Agassiz examined all of 

 Lamarck's types some förty years ago and satisfied himself that the present species (viz. 

 Prionocidaris bispinosa (Lamk.) is Lamarck's annulifera. In a disagreement such as 

 this it is obvious that the earlier investigation is the one least liable to error, for 

 there had been considerably less time for a chance confusion of labels or specimens.» 

 In the paper quoted above Döderlein gives a fair representation of the reasons 

 against Clark's view, which I need not repeat here, and finally in his paper on the 

 Echinoidea in »Die Fauna Siidwest- Australiens» Döderlein states that »nunmehr 

 auch H. L. Clark, wie er mir brieflich mitteilte, sich hat iiberzeugen lassen, dass 



