INTRODUCTION AND CORRIGENDA. 
Echin. 7 
ability of which would have been vastly increased had the synonyms found 
a place in the index to genera. The Introduction to last year’s Record 
expressed the opinion that “ no classification ” of the Ophiuroideci “ that 
omits the fossils can be considered as other than a trifling with the subject.” 
The Recorder of course was unaware that by these words he was pre¬ 
judging Dr Meissner’s classification, summarised in the opening paragraph 
of iv, e. There are no new genera of Crinoidea either, but new species 
are fully described by Follmann and by Wood, while Etheridge gives 
a much needed redescription of Pentacrinus australis Moore, which he 
correctly refers to Isocrinus. Springer’s union of the Westphalian and 
American species of Uintacrinus carries important consequences to the 
stratigraphist; but is it justified ? Rowley (267) proposes two new genera 
of Blastoidea—Lophoblastus and Carpenter oblastus , not differing greatly from 
those already known. J. M. Clarke revises the N. American Agelacrinidae , 
reducing all, including some novelties, to the three genera Agelacrinites (as 
he persists in calling it), Discocystis , and Lepidodiscus : many of the state¬ 
ments in this paper would probably have been put otherwise had Professor 
Clarke used the Zoological Record. Jaekel in his suggestive sketch of 
the Carpoidea (v. supra) finds it necessary to institute the new genera 
Mitrocystella and Canadocystis for species already known, as well as 
Ceratocystis and Rhipidocystis for new types. He makes several new 
Orders and Sub-orders, as detailed under iv G. 
It continues necessary to point out the extreme difficulty, in many 
cases, of deciding whether or no a name be new. Some authors say 
nothing ; others do worse, they introduce the name with a reference to 
the date wffien they first thought of it, and send one on a wild-goose-chase 
after a non-existent pamphlet; others again merely attach their own 
name; but how few take the natural and intelligible course of labelling 
a new genus or species as such by means of ‘ n. g. et sp.’ ! Some indeed 
profess to do so, and leave the reader to discover that there has already 
been a ‘preliminary description.’ 
With the defects thus inevitable, the following analysis may represent 
the additions to the System during 1901:— 
New 
genera 
Altered 
generic 
names 
New 
species 
New 
varieties 
Holothurioidea 
4 
0 
87 
2 
Echinoidea 
.7 + 1? 
3 
94+1 n.n. 
16 
Asteroidea 
0 
0 
3 
2 
Ophiuroidea 
0 
0 
14 
0 
Crinoidea 
0 
0 
12 
2 
Cystidea 
4 
0 
10 + 1 n.n. 
0 
Blastoidea 
2 
0 
4 
0 
Total 
17 + 1 ? 
3 
224 + 2 n. n. 
22 
CORRIGENDA in previous Records. 
Record for 1897, vol. xxxiv :—- 
p. 32. No. 316. “Stefano, G. de. Osservazioni etc.” should be 
“ Stefano, Giovanni di. Nuove osservazioni etc,” 
