- INTRODUCTION. 
Ecliin. 5 
Genera Species 
hypothetical, 
doubtful or doubtful or 
Holothurioidea ... 
Fehinoidea, 
new 
5 .... 
new names only 
1 
new 
26 ... 
unnamed 
0 
19 .... 
..... 2 
... 112 ... 
...... 11 
Asteroidea 
4 .... 
0 
19 ... 
1 
Ophiuroidea 
8 .... 
0 
71 ... 
2 
Crinoidea 
13 .... 
0 
... 249 ... 
3 
Oystidea 
18 .... 
12 
13 ... 
4 
Blastoidea 
0 .... 
0 
1 ... 
0 
There are also many new subgenera, now varieties, and doubtful new forms. 
But perhaps the most valuable piece of systematic work is that by 
Ludwig on the Starfish of the Mediterranean (210), though not a single 
new species is described therein. 
The preceding numbers are no doubt fairly correct, but the Recorder 
cannot be blamed if he has occasionally missed one of the numerous 
new names casually introduced in footnotes, reviews, and the like obscure 
places. The otherwise admirable papers of Lambert, Schlueter, & 
Tornquist, were particularly troublesome. The chance of error would be 
avoided if authors would but give a list of all new names proposed in 
each paper. So far is this from the case that it is sometimes quite 
impossible to tell whether a name is new or no. 
In the matter of figuring new species the conscience of authors is 
awakening. Reference to such figure has been given consistently in the 
Systematic Index. That Index contains a reference to every definite 
statement made concerning a genus or species in the papers dealt with. 
When the name of the species is followed by no remark, it probably 
alludes to a statement of locality or horizon only. 
Among general works Zittel’s Grundzilge (356) and the translation by 
Eastman (357) are of value, while Haeckel (116) is suggestive. The 
Holotliurioidea are studied by Dendy (63) in New Zealand and Ostergren 
(253, 254) in Norway, whilo R. Perrier (265) has valuable material 
from N. Atlantic, and notes of importance are furnished by Koehler 
(170) and Mitsukuri (238, 239). Recent Echinoidea are studied by 
Koehler (164, 168); the papers of Gregory (108, 109), Jackson (139), 
Meyer-Eymar (224) and Tornquist (326, 327) on fossil Echinoidea 
have important taxonomic bearings; and detailed work is done by 
Cotteau (56), Gauthier (98), Lambert (179, 180), de Loriol (193, 194), 
Noetling (248) and Schlueter (296, 297). Recent Asteroidea are studied 
by Doederlein from Amboina, by Farquhar (83) from New Zealand, 
by Perrier (263) from Bay of Biscay, and notably by Ludwig (210) ; 
the fossils are added to by Del Prato (271). Recent Ophiuroidea 
are described by Doederlein (68) as above, and Koehler (169, 164) 
from Indian Ocean and Bay of Biscay; a classification of the Palaeozoic 
genera is proposed by Gregory (111). Fossil Crinoidea are largely added 
to by Miller & Gurley (232-235), while systematic work of higher order 
is done by Wachsmuth & Springer (336). Here also comes valuable 
information from Jaekel (144), de Loriol (194), Oehlert (250), and 
Weller (340, 341). Tho Cystidea are dealt with by Haeckel (118), 
whilo Pompeokj (268) and Wiiiteaves (345), add now gonora. 
It will bo seen from tho preceding summary that progress is active 
in all directions, whilo tho amount of really thorough work augurs hope- 
fully for tho future. What we all want, but especially Recorders, is 
more study, less publication, and better arrangement of what is published. 
Any further personal remarks by the Recorder are placed, as heretofore, 
in square brackets. 
1897. [VOL. XXXIV.] 
E 20 
