3o 



TH. MORTENSEN, 



(Schwed. Siidpolar-Exp. 



character, being exceedingly variable, as sufficiently shown by De Loriol. As a 

 matter of fact I find this irregularity in the abactinal series of primary interambu- 

 lacral tubercles more or less developed in all the specimens examined by me, not 

 a single one having a quite regular series (viz. with a large tubercle on every plate, 

 gradually diminishing in size towards the apical system). In several cases the pri- 

 mary tubercle has even wholly disappeared on every second abactinal plate. * 



Studer (Op. cit. 1880) points out a considerable difference in the structure of 

 the pedicellariae as a distinguishing feature between alternans and Dufresnii (Taf. I. 

 Fig. 2, 3). De LORIOL is inclined to see likewise a real difference herein. Studer's 

 figures give, however, the proof that these differences, though conspicuous enough, 

 are without any value for the purpose of distinguishing alternans from Dufresnii, 

 because one (Fig. 2) represents an ophicephalous, the other (Fig. 3) a tridentate 

 pedicellaria. Real, constant differences in the pedicellarise by which two species 

 might be distinguished I have been unable to find. Studer further states that the 

 spines of alternans are more pointed than those of Dufresnii. I am unable to see 

 any difference in the spines either; they certainly vary somewhat both in length and 

 thickness, but these variations are too inconsiderable and inconstant to be used as 

 specific characters. 



In the careful description of Dufresnii and alternans given by Troschel (Op. cit.) 

 only two more important differences are pointed out, viz. that of the tuberculation, 

 which has been shown to be non-existent and the colour, alternans being stated to 

 be brown, which would certainly be a very conspicuous difference from the eminently 

 characteristic green colour of Dufresnii. It is quite true that the colour of the type 

 specimens of alternans was brown, but this depended on their being insufficiently 



* In the »Hasslers Echini (p. 7) Agassiz speaks of »the propeity possessed by the Arbaciadte of re- 

 sorbing at any time during their growth the primary abactinal interambulacral tubercles, and changing them 

 into a sort of chagrin, or finely granular, nearly bare abactinal star>. — Such a resorption of tubercles 

 (with the spine, muscles etc.) and the transformation of them into epistroma (which seems to me to be the 

 meaning of the sentence quoted) is highly improbable and — as far as I know — quite without any proof. 

 It is further .quite unnecessary for understanding the alternation of the tubercles in this and other species 

 of Echini. The fact is that no tubercle and spine is ever formed on the plates lacking them in grown 

 specimens. This may be easily confirmed on examining somewhat carefully the upper plates in young speci- 

 mens. Whereas thus the alleged property of resorbing the tubercles and transforming them into epistroma 

 appears very improbable and without any supporting facts and observations, the inverse case, viz. the re- 

 sorption of the epistroma and its use partly in the formation of the tubercles, seems put beyond doubt 

 through the beautiful researches of Loven on the changes undergone by the test of the young Arbacia 

 lixida (aquituberculata) (Echinoidea descr. by Linna;us, p. 86 — 94). 



I may recall here my note (alngolfs Echinoidea II. p. 41) on the alleged resorption of injured spines 

 in Urechimis described by Agassiz (Panamic Deep Sea Echini p. 153, 159 — 60). That any resorption has 

 taken place in these cases is highly improbable, and no facts tend to show it. Most probably the cases 

 described by Agassiz are only the results of the rough treatment of the specimens in the dredge. It may 

 also, to more or less extent, be due to autotomy. Though hitherto not known in the Echini autotomy has 

 now been proved to occur also here through the beautiful researches of O. Poso. (Ricerche biologiche ed 

 istogenetiche sugli Echini regolari. Archivio Zoologico. II. 1909. p. 463). 



