4 Echin. 
XIV. ECHINODERMA. 
[ 1904 ] 
1891 Record (devoting 91 pages to 186 papers and a few abstracts) with the 
1902 Record (where 307 papers with many notes and abstracts are indexed 
in 88 pages). The length of a Record for a given year depends less on the 
number of titles than on the proportion of large monographs, and in such 
works 1904 was peculiarly rich. 
II. Biology. The Echinoderm volume of Delage & H^rouard’s 
‘Trait4 de Zoologie concrete’ (54) gives an admirable summary of the 
morphology, especially of living forms, the Phylum as a whole and each 
Class being described in terms of an ideal type. This method, though 
Lambert's criticism of it is most just, forms a valuable complement to the 
evolutionary method adopted in the corresponding volume of Lankester’s 
‘Treatise’ (Zool. Rec. 1900, No. 19). There is, however, a chapter on 
phylogeny, in which the authors adopt as at least ben trovato the 
Pelmatozoic theory elaborated in that treatise. They add full accounts of 
the Physiology and Embryology of each extant Class. In a separate 
paper (121) HIsrouard puts forth his own hypothesis of the origin of 
Echinoderms from a metamerically segmented Dipleuraea. A more elabo- 
rate speculation is started by E. Meyer (190) : a typically segmented 
Annelid, taking to a half-sedentary, partly tubicolous life gives rise to the 
three groups of Prosopygia — Sipunculoidea, Phoronoidea, and Bryozoa ; at 
an early stage in this history branched off the hypothetical Astrelminthes, 
of which the Dipleurula is the ontogenetic equivalent ; these possessed a 
terminal anus, an anterior pair of nephridia with internal openings near 
the diaphragm, a crown of tentacles with ciliated grooves round the 
terminal mouth, and a pair of symmetric diaphragm-sacks as precursors 
of the ambulacral system. Simroth (256) dismissing all other theories as 
fantastic, and brushing aside palaeontology, considers that the Echinoderms 
are derived from their own parasites, the Myzostomes, in this way “ dass 
je ein Darmblindsack in eine Sinnesknospe hineinwucherte und sich mit 
dieser verband. Das diirfte das ganze Geheimnis sein.” 
Anatomy. — A large number of important details, beautifully illustrated, 
are contributed by Agassiz (3) to our knowledge of the Echinoid test, 
principally in abyssal Spatangoids. Since this memoir suffers from the 
absence of an index, a list of the genera dealt with is given under III, a, iv. 
A similar assemblage is handled by de Meijere (57), but the structural 
features which appeal to him are so different that the two authors scarcely 
seem to treat of the same class of animals. The anatomy of the test also 
receives elucidation from Mortensen (194-195), who specially discusses 
the homologies of pedicellariae. Tornquist’s study of the apex in 
Schizaster (268) will help the classification of this difficult genus ; I regret 
my inability to record his paper on Eocene fossils from Madagascar. The 
existence of an inner and outer series of plates in the ambulacrum of 
' Palaeodiscus, as maintained by Sollas, is confirmed by Spencer (264) who 
also confirms the views of Roemer, Meek, and Jaekel as to the structure of 
the food-groove in Agelacrinidae. The paper deserved better proof-reading 
than papers seem to get with our leading society. 
Physiology, Bionomics, Auxology.— Oestergren (204) publishes an 
interesting note, and Uexkull (274) a profound and fascinating study, of 
Ophiurid arm-movements. The reproduction of Starfish from isolated 
rays is convincingly proved by Monks (193) & Kellogg (139). Schmidt’s 
(246) exact description of the early stages in Echinus larva should be useful 
for comparison with experimental results, while Delage’s account (52) of 
Asterias larvae, though based on parthenogenetic individuals, contains 
facts of value to the morphologist, who will of course also read MacBride 
(172) on Ophiothrix , and should glean something from the numerous 
descriptions of minute individuals and of growth stages in various 
Echinoids which enrich the pages of Agassiz (3). Miss Klem’s (142) 
criticism of Jackson & Jaggar’s work on the growth of Melonites is not 
