Bd VI: 4) 
THE ECHINOIDEA. 
I03 
after the Cretaceous period — and not between South Africa and the Kerguelen 
group either. That there has been a land connection between South America and 
Africa I do not venture to deny (though I must still maintain that the occurrence 
of identical species of Echinoderms, having pelagic larvae, on both the African and 
the Brazilian- West Indian Coast is no proof of such a connection, as these larvae 
certainly can pass from one coast to the other 1 2 ; with the Mollusc larvae the case 
seems different, as they would probably not be able to cross the Atlantic). But if 
such a land connection between Brazil and Africa, an Archhelenis-bridge, has existed, 
it seems evident from the Echinoid fauna of South Africa that this bridge cannot 
have been situated so far south along Africa as supposed by IilERING; and even if 
we suppose that it had gone only to Guinea, I do not see the reason, why we 
have no interrelation at all between these two faunas. The Echinoid fauna of South 
Africa, in fact, bears evidence against this region having ever, since the Cretaceous 
period, been in any connection with the South American region, either through an 
antarctic or through an »Archhelenis» land-bridge. — It is true that some species of 
Echinoids are recorded as occurring both in the Patagonian region of South America 
and at Africa, viz. Austrocidaris canaliculata, Arbacia Dufresnii and Schizasler 
( Tripylaster) Philippii ; but these indications all rest on wrong identifications, as has 
been shown in the present work (p. 19, 31, 91). 
How we are to reconcile the two contradictory statements: the Patagonian fauna 
bearing evidence for, the South African fauna against the land connection I will not 
try to explain. To suggest that the land -bridge had gone only to Guinea would 
certainly not give a satisfactory explanation; to suppose that the Atlantic continua- 
tion from »Archibrazil» had not reached Africa, would perhaps reconcile the two 
contradictory statements in a somewhat better way — but I cannot here enter on 
this great problem, I only want to indicate, what must be concluded from the study 
of the Echinoid faunas of these regions, the Echinoids being a group of animals 
whose importance for zoogeographical studies is certainly very great. 
One thing I would still point out. It appears that the bathymetrical facts known 
from the Antarctic Ocean are in full accordance with the zoogeographical conclusions 
drawn from the study of the Echinoids of this region; the latter point towards a 
former connection between South America and the Kerguelen group, as also with 
the Antarctic Continent, while the Falkland Islands and South Georgia must be con- 
cluded to have been in much more recent connection with South America. The 
map of the Antarctic Sea constructed by Bruce 2 indicates, in fact, a ridge con- 
1 Cf. Stanley Gardiner, Notes and Observations on the Distribution of the Larvae of Marine Ani- 
mals. Anm. Mag. Nat. Hist. 7 ser. XIV. 1904, p. 403. 
2 William S. Bruce, Some results of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Scottish Geograph. 
Magaz. Vol. XXI, 1905. 
