INTRODUCTION. 
Echin. 7 
Ocean ; Lutkex & Mortensen (162) describe those of the E. Central 
Pacific. 
III. B. Among studies of fossil faunas the most important are the 
writings of Airaghi (2, 3, 4) on the Tertiary Ecliinoidea of 1ST. Italy, of 
Anthula (18) on the Senonian of the Caucasus, of Fourtau (96) on the 
Echinoidea of Egypt, of Grabau (107, 108) on the palaeontology of a 
Devonian district in New York, of Waagex and Jahn (246) on the 
Palaeozoic crinoids of Bohemia, and of Whidborxe (250) on the Devonshire 
fossils, which, though assigned to a Middle Devonian age, have a re¬ 
markably Carboniferous aspect. The discovery of a Silurian starfish in 
New South "Wales is published by Etheridge (83). Pre-Cambrian Echin- 
oderms appear in the Record for the first time (Matthew, 170). The 
great work of Loczy (149) does not contain much of interest to the 
echinologist, but should not be allowed to escape the attention of the 
general palaeontologist. 
IY. Allusion has already been made to several works dealing with 
the broader questions of Taxonomy, such as the rehabilitation of Edrio- 
asteroidea as a Class by Jaekel (130, s. v. Thecoidea) and Bather (22), 
the general phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa, with numerous 
new Orders, Sub-orders, and Families, by the latter author, and the 
important systematic monograph of Gystidea and Thecoidea by the former, 
the proposal of a new Order of Ophiuroids—the Ophiocistia, by Sollas 
(216), who also treats other classificatory questions from a broad and novel 
standpoint. Here also may be mentioned the attempt of Sardeson (207) 
to connect the crinoids with the cystids by way of Carabocrinus and 
his new genus Strophocrinus. The system of Holothurioidea receives 
accessions from R. Perrier (191) and Herouard (120, 121), and partial 
revision from the latter and from Clark (57). On Echinoidea , Lambert 
and Gauthier continue to publish valuable notes, while the latter author 
has materially assisted Fourtau (96) in his revision of the fossil echinoids 
of Egypt. Koehler (141) and Schlueter (209) approach the genus 
Echinocardium or Amphidetus from opposite quarters. Yoshiwara (259) 
adds further to our knowledge of the fossil urchins of Japan, while some 
interesting Palaeozoic Echinoids are made known by Sollas (216) and 
Whidborxe (250). In this group, however, the paper of fundamental 
importance is that by Rowe (202) already alluded to. Under Asteroidea 
we find extensive revisions by Gregory (111) on Palaeozoic and Merrill 
(243) on Recent genera; but it is clear that the classification of Sladex 
(whose loss zoology so greatly deplores) will have to be modified before it 
can accommodate all known forms. A classification of Ophivroidea is also 
still to seek, and no attempt to present one is made by Lutkex and 
Mortexsex (162), who content themselves with as little disturbance of 
existing ideas as possible in their thorough description of the ophiurids 
dredged by the ‘Albatross.’ There is more attempt at revision, with a 
number of new sub-genera, in Merrill’s paper on Bahama ophiurids 
(244) . A new species is added by Koehler to the re-issue of his report 
on the deep-sea ophiurids dredged by the £ Investigator,’ but one would like 
to know whether certain other changes, duly noted in this Record, are due 
to intention or to the fact that the author did not see proofs. Antarctic 
ophiurids are dealt with by Ludwig (156), who also discusses the crinoids 
of the same region (157). The chief additions to be noted under Crinoidea 
are numerous new genera from the lower Palaeozoic rocks of Bohemia, 
described by Waagex and Jahx (246), and numerous new species from 
the Devonian of SAY. England, described by Whidborxe (250) ; un¬ 
fortunately nearly all these are admittedly based on unsatisfactory 
material. The classification of Wachsmuth & Sprixger receives criti¬ 
cism from Bather (24) and Jaekel (129), while the latter is responsible 
for a new genus of Botryocrinidce (128). Many new species of Cystidea , 
