31 
used in classification, without røgard to the question, whether such 
characters are liable to be preserved also in fossil specimens, as 
the recent forms alone can be studied thoroughly, the fossils showing 
oniy some few of the structures of the animals. If it now proves 
that characters which are not found in the fossil forms are of high 
value for classification, we must certainly agree that the fossils are 
in some respects insufficiently preserved 1 ). To contend that we 
must not use other characters for classification than those which 
can be found in the fossils is really unscientific and the faet that 
there are perhaps more fossil than recent species known does not 
make the claim less absurd. 
As I have never maintained the nonsense that the pedicellariæ 
and spicules should form the only base for the classification of 
Echinoids, 2 ) so I have never been of the opinion that those char¬ 
acters should be considered the most important in classification. 
On the contrary, as I have repeatedly explained (e. g. Siam-Echi- 
noidea I, p. 40; “Ingolf’-Echinoidea II, p. 10. and other places), 
I regard the characters afforded by the structure of the test as the 
most important, and these are used as the characters of the pri¬ 
mary divisions; 3 ) (Cf. the classification given in the “Siam-Echi- 
0 It is a curious faet that the pedicellariæ, to the use of which in 
classification Lambert and Thiéry object so emphatically, are 
sometimes found also in fossil forms. 
2 ) That I have diagnosed certain new species and genera in a preli- 
minary way mainly by their pedicellariæ is quite a different thing, 
as I have likewise repeatedly explained. I only want again to state 
that I think these species perfeetly recognizable by the structures 
figured and described, mueh better than by some indications of 
structural characters of the test, more or less valueless for recogni- 
tion of the species, as is frequently the case. 
3 ) I cannot agree with Professor Doderlein, who is inelined to regard 
Glyptocidaris crenularis as belonging to the Toxopneustidæ on 
account of its globiferous pedicellariæ being without an endtooth 
(Die polyporen Echinoiden von Japan. Zool. Anzeigor, XXX, 1906, 
p. 520). The structure of the test so obviously refers this interesting 
form to the Cyphosomina that the single faet of the structure of the 
globiferous pedicellariæ cannot obscure its relation to that main 
group of regular Echinoids. On the contrary, it is quite certain 
