206 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1886. 



1882. C. radiculus Ringueberg Journ. Cinein. Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. v, p. 120, PI. 5, 



fig. 4. Niagara group. Lockport, N. Y. 

 1862. C. stigmatus Hall (Cheirocrinus stigmatus), Trans. Alb. Inst., vol. iv, p. 225 

 (Abstr. p. 31). Shumard, 18G6, Calceocrinus stigmatus, Trans. Acad. Sci. 

 St. Louis, vol. ii, p. .358; also Hall, 1S79, 2Sth Rep. N. York St. Cab. Nat. 

 Hist., p. 147, PI. 19, figs. 9-11; also 11th Ann. Rep. St. Indiana by Collett, 

 1881, p. 281, Pi. 19, figs. 9-11. Niagara group. Waldron, Indiana. 

 1860. C. tunicatus Hall (Cheirocrinus tunicatus), l.'ith Rep. N. York St. Cab. Nat, 

 Hist., p. 124, with diagram. Shumard, 1866, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Loui.s. 

 vol. ii, p. 359. Keokuk limestone. Keokuk, Iowa, Niota and Warsaw, 111. 

 I860. C. ventricosus Hall (Cheirocrinus ventricosus), 13th Rep. N. Y. St. Cab. Nat. 

 Hist., p. 123. Shumard, 1866, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. ii, p. 359. 

 Burlington limest. Burlington, Iowa. 

 Spi. Cheirocr. dactylus Hall, 1860, 13th Rep. N. York St. Cab. Nat. Hist., p. 



123. ^Burlington limestone. 

 Si/H. Cheirocr, nodosus Hall, 1860, Ibid. Keokuk limestone. 

 Syn. Cheirocr. Wachsmuthi Meek and Wortheu, 1869, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 



Phila. Burlington limestone. 

 Sgn. Calceocr. dactylus Shumard, 1866, Trans. Acad. Set. St. Louis, vol. ii, p. 



358. 

 Syn. Calceocr. Wachsmuthi, Ibid. 



APPENDIX. 



(January, 1886). 

 STEPHANOCRINIDiE W. and Spr. 



Through the kindness of Prof. R. P. Whitfield, to whom we are 

 under lasting obligations, we had lately an opportunity to examine 

 from the collection of the American Museum of Natural History 

 of New York City, some valuable and unique specimens of the 

 genus Stephanocrinus. Among these were 25 specimens of Ste- 

 phanocrinus angulatus Conrad, two of them showing the brachial 

 appendages the so-called pinnules and 18 specimens of Stephan- 

 ocrinus gemmiformis Hall. 



Stephanocrinus is one of those genera which prove to us how 

 inappropriate it is to make Crinoids, Cystids and Blastoids 

 distinct classes. The genus has been regarded by F. Roemer, 

 Johannes Miiller and Pictet to be a Cystid, by Messrs. Etheridge 

 and Carpenter and S. A. Miller a Blastoid. Dujardin and Hupd 

 and apparently (?) Hall refer it to the Crinoids ; while Prof. 

 Zittel was in doubt whether he should place it with the Blastoids 

 or not. That it has certain affinities with either one of the three 

 groups cannot be denied. It agrees by its oral and anal pj^ramid 

 with certain forms of the Cystids, while in its general habitus 



