Bd VI: 4) THE ECHINOIDEA. IOI 



tinent), as it may be concluded that such a land connection would have left its traces 

 in the littoral fauna (as well as in the land fauna and flora) — or as IHERING says: 

 »Identische Kustenspezies weisen auf ehemalige Zusammenhang der Kiisten him 

 (»Archhelenis und Archinotis» 1907, p. 185), a sentence which I can adopt with the 

 modification, that such species should not have pelagic larvae and not be capable of 

 being transported on floating algae. 



It is, of course, impossible from the study of the Echinoid fauna alone to prove 

 anything about a connection between these regions in very remote periods, palaeo- 

 zoic or elder mesozoic. But it is possible to fix the period beyond which such a 

 connection cannot have existed. It is to be noticed that such characteristic forms as 

 Protocentrotus, Spatangns and Echinocardium are not known from South America, 

 recent or fossil. Since the two latter, at least, are well developed in the Eocene, 

 it seems justifiable to conclude that a connection between South America, South Africa 

 and New Zealand cannot have continued beyond the Cretaceous period. It is like- 

 wise to be concluded from the characteristic Echinoid family, the Temnopleuridce, 

 so richly developed in the Indo-Pacific region but totally wanting at the American 

 coast, that the supposed connection between South America and the Australian re- 

 gion (Chili, New Guinea, New Zealand) cannot either have continued beyond the 

 Cretaceous period, since the Temnopleurids are already well developed in the Eo- 

 cene period. 



In addition to the above zoogeographical remarks on the South American 

 Echinoid fauna I would take the occasion here to give some further notes on a few 

 zoogeographical questions, pointing out what may be concluded from the littoral 

 Echinoid fauna of this region, whose importance in zoogeography has been made so 

 evident especially through the researches of Professor H. v. IllERING. 



It should first be pointed out that the very great percentage of endemic forms 

 among the Echinoids of the Patagonian region is a fact perfectly in accordance with 

 the »Archiplata»-theory of IHERING, according to which this part of South America 

 is zoogeographically distinct from the more northern parts, »Archiguiana^> and »Archi- 

 brasib, which latter are maintained to have been in connection with Africa in the 

 Eocene period. The Echinoidea of the Patagonian region bear evidence of having 

 developed here along the coasts of a large tract of land, isolated from Brasil. This 

 isolation would be very perfectly realised through the land connection with Africa, 

 as is sketched by IHERING in the map accompanying his book sArchhelenis und 

 Archinotiss. — ■ It may be wondered why these species have not now passed over to the 

 Brazilian coast, though these coasts are now in direct continuation. I would suggest 

 that the reason is mainly the La Plata river, its immense mouth forming, with its 

 fresh or brackish water, an almost insuperable hindrance for their wandering to- 

 wards the North. According to IHERING the Rio Negro forms the boundary between 



