20 
TH. MORTENSEN, 
(Schwed. Südpolar-Exp. 
But most probably the locality was incorrect; until it is proved that the type spe- 
cimen — if it exists any more — is really different from the Patagonian specimens, 
there is no reason to deprive this species of the name canaliculata. 
It naturally followed from the confusion of Eurocidaris nutrix a. o. species 
with canaliculata , that the latter was stated to be exceedingly variable. Judging 
from the by no means small material at my disposal I must maintain that it is not 
exceptionally variable. The length of the radioles, it is true, may vary considerably, 
but otherwise I find the characters fairly constant; especially I have always found 
the peculiar deep median ambulacral and interambulacral furrows distinct, though the 
ambulacral one may be rather narrow. Also the pedicellariæ I find rather constant 
(comp, above p. 1 6 — 17). 
In the »Ingolf» Echinoidea I. (p. 170) I gave a preliminary description of a new 
species, Stereocidaris Lorioli , from the »Challenger» St. 320; in the »Challenger» 
Echinoidea it was referred to Dorocidaris papillata. (In the »Panamic Deep Sea 
Echini» (p. 228) this error is still maintained, D. papillata being still noted as occurr- 
ing at La Plata and the Philippines.) Clark (»The Cidaridæ» p. 212), though joining 
me in distinguishing this form from papillata , maintains that Stereoc. Lorioli is only 
a synonym of Austrocidaris canaliculata, stating that he has all transitional forms. — 
That the species does not belong to the genus Stereocidaris s. str. I can easily agree 
(though I should like to examine all the characters of Lorioli before stating so de- 
finitely); but that it should be only a synonym of canaliculata I must doubt. I 
have never found in canaliculata globiferous pedicellariæ recalling in the shape of 
their valves those found in the type of L^orioli (»Ingolf»-Ech. loc. cit. Fig. 7). On 
the other hand, Prof. CLARK, who disregards the differences found in the pedicellariæ 
of the Cidarids, may perhaps on that account have been led to overlook minor 
structural differences, which may possibly be found. In any case I cannot feel con- 
vinced that the species shortly described by me under the name Lorioli is syno- 
nymous with canaliculata , until a renewed and fuller examination of the type 
specimen has shown that it cannot really be distinguished from that species. 
In the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen are preserved two specimens, labelled 
»Altata Salmin. 1870», which belong in any case to the genus Austrocidaris ; probably 
they are even A. canaliculata , though some minor differences may be pointed out. 
In case the locality is correct, they will perhaps prove to be a distinct species; but 
I think it rather more possible that the locality is wrong, seeing that A. canaliculata 
has otherwise not been recorded from that region. * In any case these specimens 
* In his paper »Fortsatte kritiske og beskrivende Bidrag til Kundskab om Söstjernerne (Asteriderne)». 
Tredie Række. (Vid. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Köbenhavn 1871 p. 289) Lütken mentions these specimens and 
several other Echinoderms as being maintained by Salmin to have come from Altata. On account of 
several of these Echinoderms being Patagonian forms Lütken doubts the correctness of the locality for 
