OCR Text |
Show 432 PROF. F. J. B E L L O N T H E T E M N O P L E U R I D A E . [June 1, show that the same specimens can hardly have been described by both these writers-the only authors who have given us original accounts. The first description of the species contains the words " Deux ransees de tubercles sur les aires ambulacraires et sur les aires interambulacraires;" in the second we find:-" In specimens measuring 60 millims. there are as many as six vertical rows [of primary tubercles] on each side of the median line at the ambitus in the interambulacral, and three in the ambulacral space." This would give twelve interambulacral tubercles, and might therefore lead us to think that " deux" was a misprint for "'douze," were it not that there are still only six ambulacral tubercles. Any zoologist who will take the trouble to refer to Mr. Alex. Agassiz's description, will see that it is impossible to found any definite opinion on the subject from the data there given; nor can I reconcile with one another tbe two following statements concerning the species :-(i.) " There are no sutural furrows on the actinal side ;" and (ii.) " The sutural furrows of lighter colour and yellowish on the actinal surface." There are in the Museum collection specimens which can be made to agree with the greater part of Mr. Alex. Agassiz's description; and the national collection is credited by him with specimens from the east and west coasts of Australia. I have searched in vain for specimens of Salmacis from a locality so described ; but there is a specimen from the east coast of Australia collected by Stutchbury (!), which is either a representative of L. Agassiz's S. globator, or is a* member of an undescribed species ; for this specimen has above the ambitus only one row of primary tubercles in each half of the interambulacral areae. To attempt to resolve the difficulties which beset the determination of this species, I addressed myself to the distinguished naturalist who has the care of the Echinodermata in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris, thinking that, as the type of Agassiz and Desor's species was in the " Collection Deshayes," it was possible it might be now under his care. Prof. Edmond Perrier responded to m y appeal with a courteous rapidity; but, unfortunately, he could only say that the species is not in the Museum of the Jardin des Plantes. With great kindness he promised to pay a visit to the Ecole des Mines, as he fancied the species was there; as, however, I have not again heard from M. Perrier, I fear that his search has not been rewarded. Whatever course be now adopted, it is obvious that there is one which would add to the present existing confusion ; that would be to propose a new specific name. That course I will not adopt; and while it is difficult to know what to do to escape from the difficulty, I think the safest course at present is to give a short description of the two forms, and to supply accurate figures of them both. Notwithstanding the large number of plates, which form a not inconsiderable portion of the Revision of the Echini, the only parts that are figured of the rare and little known S. globator is a plate from the ambulacral tube. |