INTRODUCTION. 
Echin. 7 
Savin (247) on Echinoids of Dauphine, Arnaud (12) on Echinocorys of 
Tercis, Valette (283) on Santonian Asteroids, Semenow (258) on Trans¬ 
caspian Echinoids, Kossmat (159) on Echinoids from the Gulf of Aden, 
and Broili (33) on Neocomian Echinoids from the Crimea. 
The papers indexed under Jurassic to Trias contain little more than 
records of occurrences, except that by Remes (234), which describes the 
curious Crinoid fauna of the Tithonian beds at Nesselsdorf. One cannot, 
however, pass by Walford (291) without a protest against his “Ferro- 
crinoids,” for the echinodermal nature of which there is not a scrap of 
evidence. 
Under Palaeozoic there is little to note, except some new Coal Measure 
Crinoids described by Beede (15), Lower Carboniferous Crinoids by 
Rowley (244), and various Lower Carboniferous and Devonian Crinoids 
and Blastoids described by the same author in Greene (110 & 111), but 
requiring rather better illustration before judgment can be passed on 
them. All the foregoing are from the United States. 
IV. Systematic. Under Holothurioidea the chief work is that by 
Herouard (127) noticed above ; he revises the genera of Elpidiinae and 
founds two new genera of Synallactinae—Allantis and Paroriza. 
As usual the new Echinoidea are mostly extinct. De Loriol (176) 
completes the first decade of his “Notes pour servir &c.” with the 
description of 20 spp. of fossil urchins and the new genera Phaleropygus , 
HerTclotzia , and Pyguropsis. In Lambert’s memoir (161) above noticed, 
there are the new genera Fourtaunia , Leiopleurus , Phalacrocidaris , and 
Prospatangus , while in his contribution to Grossouvre (116) he institutes 
the subgenus Isomicraster. The former paper includes many observations 
of systematic importance; especially should one note the remarks on the 
Bnssidae , the Cidaridae, Brissoides , and Spatangus. Zoologists will only 
regret that Lambert does not accept the convention that dates systematic 
nomenclature from Linnaeus, ‘ Syst. Nat.’ Ed. x, but goes back at least to 
Klein, 1734. But if he ascribes Spatangus to Klein, why does he not take 
Spatangus cor-anguinum as the type, instead of a species not mentioned 
by Klein at all ? To such inconsistencies does a return to Klein lead the 
seeker for ‘justice.’ Why not Aristotle?—or Adam? Lambert’s paper 
(163) also contains some important remarks on the value of certain 
characters in the taxonomy of the Micrasters. Another valuable contri¬ 
bution is Schlueter’s revision of Caratomus (252), to which is appended 
the description of a new genus— Hemicara. The only other new genus is 
the Eocene Distefanaster of Checchia (40 & 41) which does not mean “a 
star with two crowns.” Oppenheim’s useful revision (210) has already 
been referred to : it contains many new species, as also do several of the 
papers mentioned under Distribution. The well-meant but isolated 
attempts of scattered authors seem to be breeding confusion in the species 
of Scutella : it is time the genus were monographed. 
The Asteroidea have yielded no new genera, and reference need only be 
made to the papers of Doederlein (70) on Japanese species, of Valette 
(283) on Senonian specimens, both of which describe new species, of Grieg 
on the Norwegian Echinoderms (113) and on Solaster papposus (114), of 
Bell (17 & 19), and of Clark (48). 
Bell’s account of Antarctic Echinoderms (17) also provides two new 
genera of Opkiuroidea—Ophionotus and Ophiosteira. The remaining one 
— Ophiophycis —is due to Koehler (155) and was discovered by the 
Prince of Monaco, along with some new species of Ophioglypha. Doeder¬ 
lein (69) describes, but does not figure, many new species of Japanese 
Euryalidae. Farquhar’s new Amphiura (77) was described some years 
ago, but the reprint bore no page-number or date, and the volume was 
first accessible to the Recorder this year. 
Except for the new Hyocrinid, Gephyrocrinus , described by Koehler & 
1902. [Vol. xxxix.] e 21 
