INTRODUCTION. 
Echin. 5 
immediately intelligible. Among papers on experimental embryology one 
cannot refrain from noting the beautiful experiments of Garbowski (94) 
and the startling fact incidentally announced by Janssens (136) that all 
the experts at Naples, trying all methods on all manner of material for a 
whole breeding season could not get a solitary case of parthenogenesis. 
III. Distribution. The chief interest of the following papers is 
faunistic. On the Ophiurids collected by the ‘ M. Sars’ Grieg (106) bases 
an interesting discussion of the cold-water fauna of the North Sea and its 
limits, and deals in similar manner with the Crinoidea (107). Clark (38) 
revises and describes the Ecbinoderm fauna of Woods Hole. Koehler’s 
study of ‘ Siboga ’ Ophiurids (143) extends the range of many species and 
emphasizes the wide bathymetric limits of others. Fourtau (83) gives an 
interesting account of the recent and Pleistocene Echinoid fauna of thq 
Gulf of Suez, and draws conclusions as to its connections with the Indian 
Ocean and the Mediterranean. 
Rowe (235) extends his zoning of the English Chalk to the Yorkshire 
coast which presents several remarkable features of Echinoderm distribu- 
tion, e. g. Zeuglopleurus rowei in Marsupites zone, Infulaster rostratus from 
zone of M. cortestudinarium to that of Actinocamax quadratics, and 
Cardiaster ananchytis from M. coranguinum to A. quadratus zone. The 
bionomics of Solenhofen Echinoderms are studied by Walther (281). 
FrAifont (85) publishes photographs of Echinoderms from the Black 
Marble of the Belgian Carboniferous, a fauna hitherto undescribed and 
unfortunately too ill preserved for satisfactory determination. Hemiaster 
oubicus has been largely quoted from Sinai, but in the collections at his 
disposal Newton (196) finds only Linthia oblonga. 
IV. Systematic. The classification of Echinoderma both recent and 
fossil, down to subgenera, given by Delage & H^rouard (54) is valuable 
as giving a more complete list of names than can be found in any existing 
work on the subject, with an index showing syndnyms and even misprints. 
The adoption of such groups as Palasteridiae and Euasteridiae , or 
Palophiuridiae and Colop hiuridiae, the separation of Synapta from all 
other Holothurians, and the division of Inadunate Crinoids into Larvi- 
formida and Fistulida are steps possibly warranted but certainly retrograde. 
The formation of Family names by the addition of -inae to the full name 
of a genus (e. g. Opkiohelusinae ) accords neither with etymology nor the 
custom of systematists. These and similar vagaries of nomenclature, 
though indexed in this Record, are not emphasized as novelties. Under 
Asteroidea , however, the authors propose the new generic names Echino- 
discaster for Echinodiscm Stiirtz, and Calvasierias for Calveria Ivystrix 
[better known as Korethraster hispidus], while they mention Goniodon , as 
well as the Ophiurid Astrodia , now first indexed as new genera. The 
details of their classification of Echinoidea are largely due to Mortensen. 
Miss K lem’s (142) bibliography and list of palaeozoic Echinoids is a 
useful aid to the memory, but should not be trusted implicitly. Among 
recent sea-urchins Bell (22) founds Eobrissus, a new Spatangoid. The 
memoir on Panamic deep-sea Echinoids by Agassiz (3) is less systematic 
than morphological ; it contains a new genus, Pilematechinus, also Centro- 
cidaris , a new subgenus of a genus not stated, and much condemnation 
of De Meijere & Mortensen. The latter(195)in describing Regular Echinoids 
collected in the Gulf of Siam, gives a fresh classification of the Subclass, 
and a most careful study of Diadematidae and Temnopleuridae ; in the 
matter of new genera his restraint is commendable. His taxonomic 
methods are followed by de Meijere (57), who describes new species of 
Echinoids and one new genus, Selenechinus , from the Malay Archipelago, 
and redescribes the interesting Echinocorytidae and Pourtalesidae intro- 
duced in his preliminary note ; his summary of results is welcome to those 
who cannot stomach the details of spines and spicules. In describing new 
