175 
12. Holopneustes inflatus Ltk. 
? Echinus elevatus. Hutton, 1872. Catalog. Echinod. New Zealand, p. 11. 
Holopneustes inflatus. A. Agassiz. 1872. Revision of the Echini. p. 483. 
— Th. Mortensen. 1904. Echinoidea. Danish Exped. 
to Siam. Mem. Acad. R. d. Sciences. Copenhague. 
7. R. I. p. 107. 
H. Farquhar. 1907. Notes on N. Z. Echinoderms; 
with description of a new species. Trans. N. Z- 
Inst. XXXIX. p. 129. 
H. L. Clark. 1912. Hawaiian a. o. Pac. Echini. 
The Pedinidæ .... etc. Mem. Mus. Comp. (Zool. 
XXXIV. p. 333. 
No specimens of this species were taken by myself, but I re- 
ceived a specimen from Capt. Bo 11 on s, which he had found on 
the beach of Little Barrier Isl. It is a naked test, but there seems 
to be no doubt that it is really H. inflatus, the occurrence of which 
species at the coasts of New Zealand would thus appear to be de- 
finitely ascertained. 
It seems very probable that this is the species which was de- 
scribed by Hutton as Echinus elevatus. It is true, Hutton him- 
self has informed me that it was the same as Amblypneustes for- 
mosus (Ingolf-Echinoidea I, p. 104). Considering, however, the 
difficulty of distinguishing at that time the Amblypneustes and 
Holopneustes- species there is no certainty at all that this identific- 
writing my work on the larvæ, and it was only now on identifying the 
New Zealand specimens of H. tuberculata that I became aware of my 
mistake. 
In my Ingolf-Echinoidea I have stated the Japanese form to belong 
to the Toxopneustidæ. not to the Echinometridæ, on account of the struct- 
ure of the globiferous pedicellariæ. Its larva being found to be of the 
typical Echinometrid form, this would appear to be a hard blow to my 
theory of the larval classification being in correspondance with that of 
the adults. In reality there is no contradiction. The single globiferous 
pedicellariæ which I had found in the material at my disposal when 
working out the Ingolf Echinoidea must have come accidentally on to 
the specimen. In reality the globiferous pedicellariæ of the Japanese form 
which appear to be mostly very scarce and found only in young spec¬ 
imens — are of the Echinometrid type, and the species therefore both 
from the characters of the adult and of the larva belongs to the Echin- 
ometrids. I still think that the Japanese species cannot be referred to 
the same genus as tuberculatus and ought to be called Anthocidaris , 
probably A. crassispina (A. Ag.), but this is, of course, not the place for 
a discussion of this question. 
