164 
Hytn of Pseudechinus, which latter name is the older and must be 
retained. To refer albocinctus and magellanicus, with their allied 
species, to the genus Parechinus (or Protocentrotus), as is done by 
H. L. Clark, is out of question, the plated buccal membrane and 
the quite different type of the globiferous pedtcellartæ betng too 
important characters to be disregarded. Perhaps also the “crenul- 
ation“ may prove a character of importance. Whether there is in 
reality any nearer relation between Parechinus (Protocentrotus ) and 
Pseudechinus the study of their larval forms may dtsclose. 
7. Pseudechinus Huttoni Ben ham. 
PI. VI. Figs. 17-19; PI. VII, Figs. 12-18. 
Salmacis globator.') Hutton, 1878 Notes on some New Zealand Echinod. 
Trans. N. Z. Institute. XI. p. 306. 
_ _ Farquhar, 1898. Echinoderm Fauna of New 
Zealand, p. 318. 
_ _ Hutton, 1904. Index Faunæ N. Zealandiæ. p. 288. 
Pseudechinus Huttoni. Benham. 1908. An erroneous Echinod idemif. 
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 8. Ser. I. p. 104. 
Echinus — — 1909. Echinoderma N. Z. G. Trawling 
Exp. Rec. Canterb. Mus. I. 2. p. 27. 
To Professor Ben ham is due the credit of having assigned 
this form, so long mistaken for Salmacis globator, to its true pos¬ 
ition * 2 ) within the genus Pseudechinus-, the faet that he was later 
on s'cared by the authority or A. Agassiz to disavow himself and 
to declare the microscopical characters of no value for distinguish- 
ing genera, and therefore put it into that old lumber-room, the 
“genus" Echinus, does not deprive him of the honour of betng 
the first to apprehend this interesting species correctly. 
To the very careful description, given by Benham, only some 
.) studer. Ubersicht uber die wahrend d. Reise S. M. S. Corvette Gazelle 
um die Erde 1874-76 ges. Echinoidea. Monatsber. Akad. d. Wtss. Berlin, 
1880, p. 874) quotes the name wrongly as Årbacia globator. 
2 ) Provided the crenulation of Ps. albocinctus is not genuine, in whic 
case the present species, in which no such crenulation is to be observed, 
could hardly be congeneric with the former. In that case it would re¬ 
present a new genus. 
