INTRODUCTION. 
Ech. 3 
III. DISTRIBUTION. The arrangement follows that of last year’s 
Record. The establishment of a Section devoted to Bathymetric distri- 
bution might prove useful ; this year it would have referred to Bernard 
(10), Murray (125), Herdman (55), Marenzeller (104), and especially 
Verrill (164). Many of the papers that fill Section B, GEOLOGICAL 
DISTRIBUTION, seem to have their value lessened by inaccurate zoolo- 
gical nomenclature. 
IV. SYSTEMATIC. This forms an Index to every genus and species 
mentioned in the recorded literature, provided that some definite state- 
ment has been made concerning it. When such statement is one of 
locality only, then nothing more than the name of the species is given. 
This Index should be used in connection with the cross-references given 
in the list of Titles. 
The year 1895 saw the establishment of 264 new species and 34 new 
genera of Echinoderma , distributed as follows: — Holoihurioulea , species 2; 
Echinoidea , genera 11, species 88; Asteroidea , genera 3, species 23; 
Ophiuroidea , genera 2, species 3; Crinoidea , genera 16, species 137; Cys- 
tidea , genera 2, species 8 ; Blastoidea , species 3. There are also many new 
varieties, and a regrettably large number of nomina nnda. Many of the 
new species are published without illustration ; Bernard, Jaekel, 
Lambert, Sluiter, & Verrill are a few of the zoologists who differ 
from their colleagues in seeing no harm in this. 
The new Echinoidea are mostly extinct species from Sardinia and 
Persia, many of them based on fragments of spines, which the authors 
themselves regard as possibly belonging to pre-described species. It is a 
relief to turn to Lambert’s careful revision of the species of Micraster , 
though even he describes and names a species in one paragraph only to 
prove it a synonym in the next. The chief systematic work among 
Asteroidea is by Verrill & Leipoldt, though many of the new species 
are due to Sluiter. 
The species- factories in Illinois have recently glutted the market with 
new names for fossil Grinoidea f which do not seem to find ready accept- 
ance ; it is, however, to their credit that every proposed species is 
figured. In proposing new generic names, they are this year rivalled by 
Jaekel, who has described, but not always figured, many new species 
from the Devonian rocks of Germany. Hartlaub’s description of the 
“ Blake ” crinoids is a welcome contribution. 
It is again necessary to point Out that the numbers here given are 
liable to correction ; indeed, these lists must continue inexact so long as 
authors continue to regard their scientific papers as a pleasurable and easy 
means of puzzling their colleagues. 
Any personal remarks ventured by the Recorder are placed, as before, 
within square brackets. 
