6 Echin. 
XIV. ECHINODERMA. 
urge on those gentlemen the need for an accurate determination of the 
material with which they work. They are too much inclined to infer the 
universal from the particular, and to overlook the fact that species and 
even local races differ from one another in their reproduction and develop¬ 
ment, just as much as in their habits and perhaps more than in their 
structure. 
III. Distribution. A. The Geographical part, in which bathymetric as 
well as horizontal extension is included, indexes several contributions of 
importance. Theel (297) strikes a blow for the bipolar hypothesis, but 
its effect is weakened when Koehler (172) concludes from the ‘Belgica’ 
collections that hitherto the truly Antarctic fauna has not. entered into 
the argument, and that, so far as Kchinoids and Ophiuroids are concerned, 
the nearer one approaches the South Pole the less is the resemblance to 
the Arctic fauna. The circumpolarity of Arctic Echinoderms is brought 
out by Bankin (252) and Clark (62). 
Besides the results of the ‘Belgica’ expedition from Koehler (172) and 
Herouard (150), we now receive notes on the Echinoids of the ‘Valdivia’ 
from Doederlein (94), and descriptions of an unexpectedly large number 
of new species of Holothurians collected by the ‘ Siboga’, also in the 
Indian Ocean. Valuable lists of Western Atlantic Echinoderms are 
furnished by Clark (64, 65, 66), Bankin (252), and Whiteaves (320), while 
Clark’s accounts of recent collections from the Pacific coast of N. America 
(62, 63) also claim attention. Pruvot (248) has made a detailed examina¬ 
tion of a district in the West Mediterranean. r Phe distribution of Asterias 
within limited areas is carefully studied by Buerkel (48) and Mead (207). 
B. A characteristic feature of the Geological index is the large 
number of fossil occurrences of species still living. The more important 
papers on extinct faunas are those by Airaghi (1), J. M. Clarke (69), 
Elbert (103), Eourtau (119), Gauthier (127), Loriol (192), Noetling 
(225), Oppenheim (229), Lambert in Petitclerc (240), Bowley (267) & 
in Greene (141, 142), and Yoshiwara (332). 
As before, the names quoted in Part hi are those of genera alone. 
Beference to Part iv will however always show the species referred to. In 
the present Becord this principle has been extended to Part ii ; while in 
Part iv a system of referring back to ii & hi has avoided considerable 
repetition. Thus the bulk of the Becord has been reduced, doubtless at 
the expense of convenience; but reduction had become a necessity. For 
further hints as to the way of consulting the Subject-index to the best 
advantage, reference should be made to the Introductions of former years. 
IV. Systematic. The works that deal with the wider questions of 
taxonomy have, for the most part, already been mentioned in connection 
with phylogeny (ii, a, iii) from which it becomes increasingly difficult to 
divorce them. Those descriptive of recent or fossil faunas have been 
alluded to under iii. The following are the chief additional items: 
Ludwigia , a new genus intermediate between Cucumariidae and Molpa- 
diidae , described by Beiffen ; Bathyherpystikes a new Synallactine, and 
Rhipidothuria a new Elpidiine, due to Sluiter and Herouard respectively. 
Cowles in Clark (65) describes a new Cucumaria with care of the brood, 
and Clark himself proposes a new genus, Thyonepsolus , of somewhat 
doubtful validity. Among new genera of Echinoidea are (dymnopatagus 
of Doederlein, Holasteropsis of Elbert, Eseudopileus and iVeoclypeus of 
de Loriol, Mariania and Rovasendia of Airaghi, and Dumblea of Oragin ; 
none of these is very striking. Other new names are Lefortia and 
Fomelopsis (both for the same thing), Trochotiara , and the hypothetical 
Euporophyma , of which the chief diagnostic is the imperfect preservation 
of the specimens. The Hood of new genera and subgenera in Stelliformia, 
as Bell proposes to call the Asteroidea + Ophiuroidea, has subsided, and 
instead we have the useful synopsis by Meissner in Hamann, the service- 
