426 



PEOF. P. M. DUNCAN ON ECHINOIDEA 



definitely stated that he has found an internal fasciole in his 

 specimens, and has given no details of any. Cotteau does not 

 know whether to call M. Pomel's typical species a Sar sella or a 

 Maretia. It is quite apparent, on comparing the figures of 

 Maretia planulata given by A. Agassiz (' Revision,' pi. xix h. fig. 7), 

 and Maretia anomala, nobis (Quart. Jonrn. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxiii. 

 pi. iv. fig. 1), that M. Cotteau was justified in his doubt, and that if 

 a subanal fasciole exists, the species is really a Maretia; if not, 

 the species belongs to Hemipatagus (Desor, ' Synopsis/ tab. 44). 



Before perfect specimens of Lovenia Forbesi had been obtained 

 Mr. Tenison "Woods had considered the form under consideration to 

 be a Hemipatagus, and this genus of Desor's is characterized by the 

 test being small and furnished with large interradial primary 

 tubercles, resembling those of Spatangus, but absent in the posterior 

 interradium, by the plastron being in general smooth, as if worn, 

 and by having projecting and elongate petals, four genital pores 

 and no fascioles. Yet M. Pomel places Maretia, Gray, as synony- 

 mous with Hemipatagus (op. tit. p. 29). It is perfectly evident that 

 Maretia has a subanal fasciole and often a discontinuous narrow 

 lateral fasciole ; this last has been noticed by A. Agassiz and myself. 

 Maretia according to Cotteau is therefore not Hemipatagus accord- 

 ing to M. Pomel. 



25. EUSPATANGUS EOTUNDUS, DunC. 



Eupatagus rotundus, Dune. op. eit. p. 53, pi. iii. figs. 14-17. 



The relative dimensions of this species and the want of any 

 contraction on either side posteriorly separate it from the other 

 forms of the genus from Australia and elsewhere. 



26. Euspatangus Laebei, Dune. 

 Eupatagus Laubei, Dune. op. cit. p. 55. 



The classificatory position of this form is not without doubt, for 

 it has the primary tubercles " environed by the peripetalous fasciole " 

 small and even present in the posterior interradium as in Peripneustes. 

 In all other respects the species is a true Euspatangoid. A similar 

 difficulty was met with by Mr. Percy Sladen and myself in studying 

 Euspatangus avellana, d'Archiac & Haime, and we noticed the 

 affinity of that species to Macropneustes (Pal. Ind. ser. xiv. Eoss. 

 Echin. W. Sind, pt. iii. p. 237). The presence of a subanal 

 fasciole was not mentioned by me in my former communication, and 

 now I can add that it is well developed, i *ff><*^e*k i> £ 424-4i or* 



(f 4. 2.4-4- "5 



27. EUSPATANGUS MUEEAYENSIS, Laube. 



Eupatagus murrayensis, Laube, op. cit. p. 196, fig. 4. 



This species is very oviform in shape and high behind, and 

 differs from the other species very definitely. 



28. Euspatangus Weighti, Laube. 



Eupatagus Wrighti, Laube, op. cit. p. 195, fig. 5. 



There is some affinity between Euspatangus rostratus, d'Archiac, 



