198 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1886. 



the Geological Report of New York, vol. ii, p. 352, gave notice of 

 a peculiar Crinoid from the Niagara group, of which he had 

 obtained what appeared to be a bipartite base or pelvis showing 

 a columnar attachment, for which he proposed the name Galceo- 

 crinus. In 1860, in the 13th Regents Report of the New York 

 State Cabinet of Nat. Historjj the same author described under 

 Cheirocrinus six new species of American Crinoids having a base 

 similar to Calceocrinus^ and which evidently belonged to that or 

 a very closely allied genus. According to Salter (Murchisou's 

 Siluria of 1859), the name CJieirocrinus had been used by Austin 

 in MS. for a similar form from the Wenloek limestone, but Eich- 

 wald had already in 1856 preoccupied the name for a certain type 

 of Cystidea. Shumard was the first writer to direct attention to 

 the probable identity of Calceocrinus with Hall's Cheirocrinus, 

 and in his Catalogue of the Palaeozoic Fossils of North America 

 he added the name Calceocrinus in parenthesis to all described 

 species of Cheirocrinus. In this he was followed in 1869 by 

 Meek and Worthen, and in 1879, Hall himself adopted Calceocri- 

 nus, while both Angelin and ZiJ-tel have retained Cheirocrinus. 

 It seems to us the latter name, according to established rules, 

 cannot be upheld for Hall's type, because it was preoccupied by 

 Eichwald for a Cystid, and even if it be true, as asserted by F. 

 Schmidt (Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersburg, Ser. ii, vol. xi, No. 11), 

 that Eichwald 's Cheirocrinus is identical with Glyptocystites, 

 which has priority, this would not alter the case. The same view 

 was evidently taken by Meek and Worthen, who proposed, in case 

 doubt should arise as to its identity with Hall's tj-pe of Calceo- 

 crinus, to change the name Cheirocrinus into Eucheirocrinus. 



We would accejot the latter name, had not Hall himself, who 

 had the best opportunity to compare the type specimens, given 

 preference to Calceocrinus. Bigsby, in the Thesaurus Devouico- 

 Carboniferus, erroneously placed the genus Catillocrinus as a 

 synonym under Calceocrinus. 



Calceocrinus was made by Meek and Worthen, in 1873, the type 

 of a distinct family, for which they introduced the name " Calceo- 

 crinidae.''^ This was adopted by De Loriol, but Angelin and 

 Zittel in their classification apply the name ''' Cheirocrinidse.^^ 



Calceocrinus difi"ers in external appearances so essentially from 

 all other Crinoids, that Hall introduced for its description a spe- 

 cial terminology, which was adopted by all succeeding writers. 



