FROM THE AUSTRALIAN TERTIAEIES. 



429 



No satisfactory information regarding the Tertiary Echinoidea of 

 New Zealand has been obtained since the publication of Zittel's 

 monograph, which forms part of the description of the 'Novara' 

 Expedition (' Eoss. Molkisk. u. Ech. aiis Neu-Seeland,' Vienna, 1864). 

 That author gave admirable figures and clear descriptions of several 

 species. Nucleolites papillosus, Zitt. (op. cit. p. 62), is said to be 

 closely allied to the recent species of the New-Zealand seas, 

 Nucleolites (EcJiinobrissus) recens, Edw. 



There is no doubt that Breynius described and delineated the genus 

 EcJiinobrissus in 1 732, and that Lamarck, being unaware of this fact, 

 founded the genus Nucleolites in 1801, to receive, unfortunately, not 

 only true species of EcJiinobrissus, Breynius, but also other species 

 which L. Agassiz subsequently properly associated with the genera 

 Catopygus and Pyrina. In 1858 Desor endeavoured to separate the 

 genera EcJiinobrissus and Nucleolites ('Synopsis des Echinides fossiles,' 

 pp. 257 & 263). 



He moreover introduced Trematopygus, d'Orb., as a group of 

 Nucleolites, with an oblique peristome. A. Agassiz, in revising the 

 genera of recent Echinoidea, had to consider the proper generic title 

 of the two recent species, both of which had been placed under 

 Nucleolites by their describers. He retains " provisionally the 

 separation into two genera," and remarks that " from the examination 

 of the scanty material of living species, the splitting of this genus into 

 two sections seems scarcely warranted." He notices that conjuga- 

 tion of the ambulacral pores, which Desor would make a generic 

 attribute, is seen associated with the opposite condition on the same 

 petal in some species, and that it is of no taxonomic value. The 

 shape of the peristome he does not consider to be^ of much 

 importance ; but he thought that the best plan was to let EcJiino- 

 brissus remain as the genus and to permit Nucleolites to be a 

 subgenus. It must be conceded that the recent species are aberrant 

 from the genus and the subgenus. Probably future research in 

 the morphology of the recent and fossil species will permanently 

 establish the old genus EcJiinobrissus, Breynius, and will absorb 

 Nucleolites, allowing two subgenera to be arranged, so that one 

 can receive the species with an oblique mouth, and the other 

 the species the ambulacra of which have single extra-petaloid 

 pores. It is evident that the Australian species differs from that 

 described by Zittel, but it is interesting to find the persistence of 

 the type through the Australian and New-Zealand Tertiaries to the 

 present Australo-New-Zealand Echinoid fauna. 



Zittel's fine drawing of Hemipatagus tuberculatus, Zitt.*, indicates, 

 from the separation and incomplete condition of the anterior 

 poriferous zones of the antero-lateral ambulacra, that there was 

 once an internal fasciole present on this form. I have little doubt 

 that specimens will be found which will prove the species to be a 

 Lovenia, closely allied to Lovenia Forbesi, Woods & Duncan. But 

 the species described as Hemipatagus formosus, Zitt.f, appears to be 



* Zittel, op. cit. p. 63, pi. xii. fig. 1. 



Q. J. G. S. No. 171. 



f Zittel, op. cit. p. 63. 

 2g 



