INTRODUCTION. 
Echin . 7 
Tretocidaris in Cidaridae ; Araeosoma, Ifapalosoma , Ilygrosoma, Kampto- 
soina , and Tromikosoma in Echinothuridae ; Pseudechinus, an Echinometrid; 
Hypsiechinus, a Temnoplenrid ; Paracentrotns, Gymneohinus , Pseudocentro- 
tus, and Parechinus in Echinidae. In other papers (228, 230) Mortensen 
proposes the new Diadematids Chaetodiadema and JJssodiadema. The 
genus Cidaris is also discussed and defined by several other writers, but 
one fails to gather who, under the rules of nomenclature, is its author, or 
which species is the genotype, although these should be the first points 
settled. De Meijere (53) gives preliminary descriptions of the Nucleolitid 
Aphanopora, the Echinocorytid Stereopneustes , the Spatangid Plesiozonus , 
and the Pourtalesiid Sternopatagus. De Loriol (200) establishes Stereo- 
pedina as a subgenus of Echinopedina , a Cassidulid Platypygus , and a 
Diadematid Aplodiadema ; the prefix ‘aplo-,’ which can only mean ‘un- 
seaworthy * is of ill omen for a new genus. Lambert is responsible for 
Aulacocidaris , Isechinus, and Craginaster. The same author’s important 
monograph of the genus Echinocorys (176) or rather of the Echinocorytinae , 
while professedly describing the Belgian specimens in the Brussels 
Museum, really deals with the whole subject from every point of view. To 
do justice to it here is impossible ; it is also unnecessary, for no echinologist 
can afford to overlook the work, though in using it he should remember 
the author’s partiality for pre-Linneau writers. Ganbirettia is a new 
Holasterid, due to Gauthier (100), and Chuniola , a Spatangid, is described 
by Gagel (97) with other interesting Echinoids from drift blocks of Middle 
Miocene age in S. E. Holstein. The names Scagliaster and Spileccia are 
here properly recorded for the first time, since of Munier-Chalmas’ work 
(231), so long regarded as semi-mythical like many others ascribed to the 
same author, two copies representing two editions have now come to hand. 
This unbarring the. flood-gates may be connected with the demise of the 
lamented author. It may be well to draw attention to a new species 
founded, but not diagnosed, by P. Oppenheim in an untitled report of 
some , remarks “Ueber Ostreen” by J. Boehm (17), appearing in the 
Zeitschrift of the German Geological Society under a date which appears 
to be that of private distribution to members only ; the uncertainty as to 
the genus is compensated by the specific name “ Linthia (?) Joannis 
Bohmi.” 
Among the many new Asteroidea collected by the Belgica, Ludwig (204) 
describes a new Brisingid genus — Belgicella. The new names Ataxaster 
and Siluraster for Ordovician Asteroids and Eophiura [non Eophiurites 
Stiirtz], Palaeura , and Bohemura for Ordovician Ophiurids are introduced 
by Jaekel (154) without diagnoses, but supported in some cases by ana- 
tomical diagrams. 
Among Crinoidea the only new genus is the doubtful Platycrinid 
Ilelicocrinus , described by . Chapman (29) from the Silurian of Victoria. 
The systematic importance of minute characters is again proved by Mor- 
tensen (227) in his careful account of the ambulacral covering-plates in 
certain species of Ante don. 
Among Cystidea are only Jaekelocystis and Coelocystis, new Glypto- 
cystids due to Schuchert (289), who also describes other new species 
from the Devonian of Maryland. 
Hambach (126) has revised the Blastoidea of N. America, performing 
the valuable service of redescribing and figuring some old type-specimens 
of Troost, Meek, and others. His own large collection has enabled him to 
make many interesting observations on the structure of some genera, but 
other workers seem unwilling to accept his conclusions as to the water- 
vascular and generative systems, and the covering-plates of tegmen and 
food-grooves, holding them inconsistent with generally accepted facts of 
Echinoderm, and especially Blastoid, morphology. The many new names 
due to him — Cidaroblastus, Clavaeblastus , Cribroblastus , Eleutheroblastus , 
