INTRODUCTION. 
Echin. 5 
inner series corresponds to the ambulacrals of Asteroids. If the observa¬ 
tions are correct, then Palozodiscus and Echinocystis combine what seem to 
be food-grooves of Pelmatozoan character with a mouth that is not merely 
Eleutherozoan in position, but provided with well-developed Echinoid 
jaws. The position seems a difficult one, but is perhaps fortified by the 
work of Jaekel & Bather on Edrioasteroidea (Thecoidea Jkl.), and is 
consistent with the above-mentioned view that the Eleutherozoa had a 
Pelmatozoan ancestry. 
The work of Jaekel (130) on the phylogeny of the Pelmatozoa is the 
largest contribution of the }'ear, and in its combination of philosophic 
boldness with accurac}* in detail, exhaustive treatment with beauty of 
illustration, it is also the most important. Comparison of its conclusions 
with those of Bather (22) shows so many points of agreement as to warrant 
the belief that a solid advance has been made in our knowledge of the 
Cystidea; at the same time the divergences of opinion between these 
authors, not to mention Haeckel, are so profound that it is clear much 
has yet to be learned. There seems, however, no doubt that the Edrio¬ 
asteroidea should rank as a distinct Class, and nothing but practical 
convenience has caused their retention with the Cystidea , in the present 
Record. The two great Orders of Cystidea , the Rhombifera (DicJioporita 
Jkl.) and the Diploporita, also seem to be well founded, though doubt still 
exists as to certain genera classed as Amphoridea, Aporita , Carpoidea, and 
Protoblastoidea. In their views as to the relations of the Crinoidea these 
writers are also at variance, Jaekel separating the Camerate families as 
Cladocrinoidea , supposed to be quite independently evolved from many- 
plated Cystids, while Bather divides them, along with the other crinoids, 
into forms with a monocyclic, and forms with a dicyclic, base, and regards 
the Camerata in each division as evolved from the Inadunata. 
Among minor evolutionary studies, attention should be directed to 
Rowe’s paper on the J licraster in the Chalk of S.E. England (202); only 
by work of this kind can the true nature of species be understood. 
B. Turning to the morphology of the classes, we find Russo (204) 
laying stress on a point already led to its logical conclusion by Haeckel, 
namely the homology of the single Holothurian gonad with the lower 
single portion of the genital rachis in Crinoidea; but the attempt to 
represent this by ciassificatory names is presumably not intended as 
a serious contribution to taxonomy. The primitive nature of the single 
gonad may be inferred from the Cystidea , which also show that the madre- 
porite was primitively a single pore, pace Willey (255). Minor notes on 
Synapta are contributed by Clark (57), while Bordas’ studies on the 
generative organs and respiratory trees of Holothuria appear in their 
final form (43, 44). Under Echinoidea there is nothing remarkable beyond 
the work of Sollas (216) already referred to. The accoimt of Asteroidea 
in ‘ Bronn’s Thierreich,’ begun by Ludwig, is completed by Hamanx. 
Lutken & Mortensen have discovered curious pores on the arms of 
Ophioderma ; but among Ophiuroideo. the most interesting work is that 
of Sollas (216) on the Silurian Eucladidce , which are found to have 
neither the arm-structure, nor the orientation assigned to them by 
Gregory. A study of some Jurassic crinoids has suggested to Bigot (39) 
valuable remarks on the pseudo-monocyclic base. Bather (24) brings 
additional facts and arguments to bear on the homologies of the anals 
in Crinoidea, which structures are discussed by Sardesox (207) from 
a more novel point of view. The anatomy of Cystidea and Edrioasteroidea 
receives abundant elucidation at the hands of Jaekel (130) who deals 
with the coelom, hydroccel, gut, nervous system, gonads, etc., despite 
the dictum of MacBride that “of the internal structure of Cystids we 
know next to nothing.” 
The notes on variation scattered through the literature are as numerous 
