Bd. VI: 4) 
THE ECHINOIDEA. 
19 
I have not been able myself to examine the specimens from all these different 
localities. Only from the Kerguelen region I have examined a good number of 
specimens and found them to be either Eurocidaris nutrix or other species (pro- 
bably of the genus Aporocidaris , viz. those from the greater depths, 1600 — 1975 
fms., »Challenger» Stations 147, 153, 156). In Ludwig’s »Echinodermen des Sansibar- 
gebietes» (Abh. d. Senckenb. naturf. Ges. XXI. 1899) the only statement concerning 
this species is: »Soll nach einem von A. AGASSIZ (1872) angeführten Exemplare des 
Leipziger Museums auch bei Sansibar Vorkommen. Von anderer Seite hat dieser 
Fundort aber noch keine Bestätigung erhalten» (p. 551). The locality »Navigator 
Islands», according to CLARK (»The Cidaridæ» p. 213), rests on a specimen in the 
U. S. National Museum, »which was obviously collected many years ago». Upon 
the whole it may be said that all these statements of the occurrence of the species 
A. canaliculata in the Indo-Pacific Region, from the Cape to Japan, rest on in- 
correct determinations or, if the identifications be correct, the localities are untrust- 
worthy. Accordingly these old statements should be left out of consideration until 
new and trustworthy evidence has been procured. * 
Quite recently the species has been recorded from the Antarctic continent and 
from Tasmania by Prof. F. JEFFR. Bell in his paper on the Echinoderma of the 
National Antarctic Expedition (National History. Vol. IV. Zoology p. 5). Since, 
however, Professor Bell still regards E. nutrix as identical with canaliculata and, 
upon the whole, emphatically holds to the old standpoint, disregarding the characters 
afforded by the minor, microscopical structures (pedicellariæ etc.), these statements 
do not afford the incontestable evidence needed, before these localities of the spe- 
cies can be finally accepted. It is quite possible that the specimens from the Ant- 
arctic are really canaliculata ; that those from Tasmania should prove to be so I 
think most improbable. 
In the paper quoted Prof. Bell says about A. canaliculata: »It seems to have 
escaped notice that this consensu omnium (with the exception of Dr. MORTENSEN) 
circumpolar Antarctic form was first described from the »Caroline Islands», which 
Caroline Islands we surmise to be those in the Pacific that is to say, the 
species was founded on specimens said to be found within the tropics.» He therefore 
doubts whether the original canaliculata is identical with the species now understood 
by that name. If the original locality was correct, the doubt is certainly justified. 
* After the above had been printed I received a paper »Echinoidea from the Kerimba Archipelago, 
Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique)» by Dr. R. N. Rudmose Brown (Proc. R. Rhys. Soc. Edinburgh. 
Vol. XVIII. 1910), in which nGoniocidaris » canaliculata is recorded from several localities on this coast. 
On my applying to the author concerning this statement, which I could hardly believe to be correct, the 
more so as a few remarks on the spines of these specimens given by the author did not suit well to 
Austrocidaris canaliculata , he most kindly sent me a pair of the specimens. They are Eucidaris metularia 
(Lamk.) and thus have nothing with Austrocidaris canaliculata to do. 
