INTRODUCTION. 
Echin. 5 
its brooding ; he shows that the gonital tubes are annual outgrowths from 
the main genital strand in the dorsal mesentery, thus confirming and 
extending the observation of Theel (298, Zool. Rec. 1901). The difficulties 
presented by the developing Echinus have at last been surmounted by 
MacBride (207), who shows that the process agrees essentially with that 
already described by him for Asterina , although there is some compression 
and modification. This fact, and the homologies that he proves for 
various structures, such as the jaw apparatus and the epineural canals, 
lead him to derive the Echinoidea directly from the Asteroidea and to 
criticise views ascribed by him to Bather & Gregory. Readers not favoured 
with an author’s copy should be warned that the paper contains a larger 
percentage of misprints than they might expect in the Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society. 
Rather more attention is now being paid to post-larval growth-changes, 
but the observations are too scattered. Grabau (109) modifies the usual 
statement as to the development of biserial brachials in Crinoids, and 
indicates a new line of phylogenetic research. 
For experimental embryologists, Viguier’s paper (313) must be lively 
reading, but its account of seasonal variation in the faculty of development 
and its insistence on the differences between different forms would alone 
suffice to commend it to the simple student of Echinoderms. Loeb (192) 
has fertilised the egg of a sea-urchin with the sperm of a starfish ; a 
similar success was claimed by Morgan in 1893, Turoyne in 1895, Giard in 
1900, and Rawitz in 1901, without Loeb’s chemical aids, but possibly 
without his precautions. See also Schuecking (291) and Viguier (313). 
III. Distribution. A. The bipolar hypothesis is again the object of 
attack. Mortensen (229), by critical re-study of many Challenger 
Echinoids, destroys much of the evidence on which it was based, while the 
Belgian Antarctic Expedition, having made known a true polar fauna, has, 
as Ludwig (204) again illustrates from the star-fish, proved the complete 
distinctness of this from the Arctic fauna, and even its great difference 
from the Subantarctic. Mortensen’s memoir on the ‘ Ingolf ’ Echinoids 
is in other respects an important contribution to the study of the 
N. Atlantic fauna, while another is Perrier’s welcome monograph on 
the Holothurians dredged by the ‘ Travailleur’ and the ‘Talisman.’ 
Faunistic studies are indeed both numerous and valuable this year. 
Leaving the reader to find details in the Index, one may refer to Oster- 
gren (244) and Norman (239) on N. Norway, Lonnberg (197) and 
Petersen (259) on the Kattegat and Skagerack, Simpson (294) and 
Nichols (236) on British seas, the dredgings of the ‘ Princesse- Alice II’ 
(4, 5, 271) in the neighbourhood of the Azores. Passing to the Indian 
Ocean, we find the highly important paper by Doederlein (62) on the 
Echinoids, with De Meijere’s preliminary note (53) on those collected by 
the ‘Siboga’ : Bell (11) catalogues 17 spp. of Ast ., 3 of Oph. and 19 of Ech. 
from Zanzibar, slightly adding to the list of Ludwig (1899) ; the most 
noteworthy is Ophioteresis. Several additions to the Holothurian fauna of 
Ceylon waters have been made by Herdman and described by Pearson 
(250) in an interesting report. The Arctic fauna is fully discussed by 
Michailovskij (223), whilo Mortensen (227, 229) and Marenzeller 
(214) also add to our knowledge of it. 
B. . Among the larger papers dealing with extinct faunas, the following 
may be mentioned. The Tertiary Echinoid fauna of Patagonia is discussed 
by Lambert (177), while both it and that of Japan are added to by 
de Loriol (200), who also describes many new species from the Tithonian 
of Is&re & Ard&che and the Cenomanian of Lebanon, Fallot (78-81) deals 
with Tertiary Echinoids of the Gironde, especially the Scutellidae. Oppen- 
heim (241) summarises the Meiocene Echinoids of the Vic&itin. The 
Mesozoic Echinoids of Savoy are catalogued by Savin (263) with help from 
