INTRODUCTION. 
Echin. 5 
tion according to descent be once granted, they are sound, and his intro¬ 
duction deserves the attention of all morphologists. 
B. Speculators on general Echinoderm morphology, and on the rela¬ 
tions of the Crinoids to the other Classes, may turn to Russo’s notes to 
his translation of Bather (18), and to his paper (269). Fuller account of 
his views will be more in place next year. 
That moot question of the relations of Ophiuroidea to Asteroidea , 
discussed in the Introduction to last year’s Record, receives fresh light 
from Zur Strassen’s re-examination of the mouth-skeleton of the former 
Class (338). His results (see ii, b, i, e, 5) favour those who would keep 
the two Classes distinct. 
Jaekel’s foundation of a new Class Carpoidea (162) puts into effect a 
suggestion, already made in No. 19 of last year’s Record, of an equivalent 
Class under the more familiar name Anomalocystida. Whether the Class, 
if accepted, will ultimately retain all the genera assigned to it by Jaekel 
is a question that can more easily be answered when the fuller statement 
of his case appears. 
Anatomical facts that are novel, but of more restricted import, are 
referred to under the various Classes. In Holothurioidea , besides 
Reiffen’s study of a new genus, we note Theel’s careful account of the 
generative organs of Mesothuria intestinalis , which is hermaphrodite (298); 
the relations of the gonads to phagocytes may have some bearing on the 
renal function which Russo has assigned to the gonads of Holothwria. 
Passing over the scattered facts indexed under Echinoidea , we find 
Pfeffer’s valuable dissertation on the supposed eyes of the Aster oidea 
(242), with which should be read Beer’s philosophical discussion of 
primitive visual organs (24). Cuenot’s paper (78), though professedly 
physiological, contains a highly important anatomical study of the lacunar 
system of starfish, with yet a new explanation of the ovoid gland. Under 
Crinoidea the work of the year is Springer’s magnificent monograph 
(290) on the structure and relations of Uintacrinus , which turns out to 
have had an exocyclic mouth (and presumably gut) like that of Actino- 
metra. The discovery of infrabasals in some specimens of U. socialis, 
which usually has none, induces Springer to attack Bather’s division of 
the Crinoidea into Monocyclica and Dicyclica , with a vigour and confidence 
that imply his forgetfulness of the fact that Bather proposed his classifi¬ 
cation with a full knowledge of this peculiarity in Uintacrinus. 
C. The most important paper in Physiology is that by Cuenot (78), 
who discusses the digestion of the food, the circulation of the nutrient 
fluid, and the excretion of the waste products in Asteroidea ; with this 
should be read Cohnheim (70). 
D. The numerous entries under Bionomics show that the economic 
importance of the starfish continues to produce many observations on its 
feeding. A more speculative subject is the meaning of the colours of 
Echinoderms, especially those of the deep sea. The suggestion, due to 
Weismann, that the phenomena of regeneration can throw light on the 
processes of heredity and evolution, is the probable cause of an outburst of 
papers on the subject; among them those by Dawydoff (84), Mead (207), 
Przibram (250), and Riggenbach (261) are most worthy of attention, 
while Morgan’s fascinating review of the whole subject (213) should by 
this time be known to all biologists. 
F. Of Embryological study in the strict sense there is nothing note¬ 
worthy. Mortensen’s account of the Echinoderm larvae of the N. 
Atlantic adds a little to his previous studies (156, 157 of Zool. Rec. for 
1898). The most serious study of post-larval growth is that made on 
a large number of Uintacrinus by Springer (290). 
The speculations of the experimental embryologists do not perhaps 
appeal to the specialist in Echinoderms ; but it is well for the latter to 
