21.11.2014 Views

ECIIINOID GENUS ECHINOCOIÎYS

ECIIINOID GENUS ECHINOCOIÎYS

ECIIINOID GENUS ECHINOCOIÎYS

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

8<br />

J. S. SMISER. — A REVISION OF THE ECHINOID<br />

in the distance separating the posterolateral and anterolateral ambulacra<br />

Unfortunately the details of the apex are often difficult to study on the Belgian<br />

specimens due to the work of the small Vioa.<br />

PERISTOME.<br />

In shape, size and position the peristome is usually consistent for a species,<br />

but unfortunately is often the same for another species or for a whole group of<br />

species. On the contrary, in some cases it varies too much within tluTspecies.<br />

There are examples where one variation, that of its position, is unique In the<br />

variety quenstedti of pyramidalis, it is located unusually far from the anterior<br />

border. The amount of peristomial depression on the lower surface seems to<br />

be a more useful variation than its shape, size or position.<br />

PERIPROCT.<br />

The position of the pcriproct appears to be comparatively useful but il« size<br />

and sometimes its shape, varies too much with the size of individuals. For tInmost<br />

part it is elongately oval in shape, and its principal variation from this is<br />

toward a broader rounded oval. As regards size, or shape, consistent gradual<br />

changes between different groups are not very apparent, But there is a little<br />

more gradual or progressive variation in its position for the genus as a whole<br />

as for example, a gradual migration from barely inframarginal to distinctly<br />

ventral in position. Its position then is of first importance. But it must be<br />

used as a character which, although applicalbe to the distinction of one species,<br />

may be of no use whatever in the distinction of another.<br />

TUBERCULATION.<br />

Within the genus as a whole, the ornamentation is so similar as to be almost<br />

worthless even as an accessory character in specific determination. Occasional<br />

uses can be made however and these are best exemplified by the conspicuously<br />

tubcrculatc lower surface of E. conoideas. This character is marked and consistent<br />

for this one form. E. vulgaris is commonly stated to possess this Character<br />

but doubtless on account of confusion with conoideus.<br />

When dealing with this particular genus, it is necessary to use a sum total of<br />

characters with body form as the principal guide. Aside from body form, each<br />

individual group has other unique characters which appear in the ambulacra<br />

apex, peristome, periproct or tuberculation. But, the fact that one of these<br />

accessory characters may be used to distinguish one species, variety or £*Tlip<br />

is absolutely no reason why it may have a unique form in another case. This is<br />

the reason for the writer's statement that any division of the genus into differed<br />

species and varieties must be, in part at least, artificial.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!