239 
exsangmbus” I found the same figure named “Echinus lapis spo- 
liatus a spinis,” as quoted by Jack son. But this figure (repre¬ 
sented in Pig. 1 ) is only an extremely bad representation of a 
fossil Ecbinoid, of which it can only be said with certainty that 
f )S not Bothriocidaris, as it has doubtless two series of plates 
botb in the ambulacra und interambulacra. On my communicatin- 
this faet to Prof. Jacks o n he sent me a photograph of the 
figure from the edition of 1618 (Fig. 2). It must certainlv be 
^ig 1 - 1. Echinus lapis spoliatus 
a spinis. From Aldrovandus 
De reJiquis animalibus exsangui- 
bus”. 1606. 
Fig. 2. The same 
figure, from the 
edition 1618. 
agreed that at first sight one would declare it really to represent 
Bothnocidaris. Still it is not so. The photograph sent me by 
Jackson showed also some of the neighbouring figures, and these 
proved beyond the slightest doubt to be redrawn in a somewhat 
smaller scale from those of the edition 1606. That the same is 
the case with the figure of the “Echinus lapis spoliatus a spinis” 
can then no more be doubted, in spite of some minor differences. 
As further evidence of this may also be mentioned the faet that 
the work quoted is an opus posthumus, Aldrovandus having died 
alieady in 1605. That a quite new figure should then have been 
introduced in the later edition, while all the rest remains ideutical, 
