24 
refers here I have the following remarks on the “globiferous” pe- 
dicellariæ of Hapalosoma pellucidum, p. 8—9: “In the Echinothurids 
globiferous pedicellariæ are only found in a single genus ( Hapalo¬ 
soma ); they are highly peculiar (PI. XIII, Figs. 20, 24, 25), ob- 
viously very primitive. The calcareous skeleton consists of three 
simple rods lying between the three (mucous?) giands, each of which 
ends in a fine pore at the end. The rods reach only half-way, 
the whole thing is coalesced to the very point; there are no mus- 
cles between the basal parts of the valves”. 
P. 55, (sub “ Asthenosoma ' pellucidum ) “The globiferous pedi- 
cellåriæ are of a quite unique form (PI. XII, Figs. 8—10, PI. XIII, 
Figs. 20, 24, 25): they cannot be opened as other pedicellariæ, the 
three glandular bags are enclosed in a common skin, and open in 
the point, each through a separate pore. The valves are situated 
between the glandular bags; they are simple rods, slightly bisected 
at the point, a little hollow on the inside, and with a rather strong 
articular surface below.” etc. And as a note is added the follow¬ 
ing remark: “By a cursory examination one might be inclined to 
compare them with the “Globiferen” of Centrostephanus longispinus 
described by Ham ann. This, however, cannot be done, at all 
events for the present; perhaps the head of these modified globi¬ 
ferous pedicellariæ will show a structure recalling the form des¬ 
cribed here. But of this, I think, we know nothing. The large 
giands of the stalk in the globiferous pedicellariæ in Censtroste- 
phanus cannot, of course, be compared with the giands in the 
head of the pedicellariæ of A. pellucidum .” Also in the diagnosis 
of the genus Hapalosoma (p. 64) mention is made of the valves. 
It is true that the valves are not mentioned in the explanation of 
the figures quoted by Professor Agassiz, but the statement that 
I give “no further explanation of their structure in describing the 
globiferous pedicellariæ of Hapalos. pellucidum' I think sufficiently 
refuted by the above quotations from my text. 
Concerning the interpretation of these curious pedicellariæ I 
may remark that to Dr. de Meijere (“Siboga”-Echinoidea, p. 37) 
