1888.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 369 



the middle is entirely broken away, leaving, however, partially in 

 place a few plates around the anal opening. There is nothing in the 

 specimen from which the form and arrangement of the summit plates 

 could be even inferred. 



Of fig. 3a, PI. VII, Dr. Lindstrom writes : " The figure is not 

 correct. The central plates are totally wanting, as in all specimens 

 ol Enallocrinus I have seen, and there are no vestiges left to infer 

 its true nature. There can be no satisfactory drawing made of it." 



Among the specimens sent us from Stockholm was one labeled 

 " VII 3, " which we suppose to be one of the originals from which 

 Angelin's PI. VII, fig. 3a, Avas in part deduced. We have figured 

 it to illustrate our description of Ennllocrinus (PI. XX, figs. Qa,b\ 

 and we learn that there are no other specimens of Enallocrinus 

 which show any more of the summit than this. 



As to fig. 2, PI. XXV, Dr. Lindstrom writes: "I cannot con- 

 ceive how such a drawing could have been executed out of it. The 

 upper side is so badly preserved that no good figure can be taken." 



The original of the splendid figure 6, PI. VIII — Crotalocrinus pul- 

 cher — which was from the Markliuean Museum at Upsala, cannot 

 be found, and we are therefore unable to give any particulars aljout 

 it. We have not the least doubt, however, that this figure, which is 

 stated to be enlarged (how much, we do not know), is even a greater 

 fiction than the others. In our own specimen of C. pulcher from 

 Sweden (PI, XIX, figs, la, b, c), we succeeded in exposing enough 

 of the summit, while cleaning around the ventral tube, to show that 

 it is composed of covering pieces, interradials and summit plates, 

 just like the Cambridge specimen (PI. XIX, fig. 3). 



These four figures, thus shown to be to a large extent incorrect and 

 misleading, were the ones on which we entirely relied in the statement 

 above quoted from Part III of the Revision. That statement was 

 critized by Dr. P. Herbert Carpenter in a paper " On the structure 

 of Crotalocrinus," in which he asserts, that " in their [our] statement 

 that ' there is no central piece, nor proximals, nor traces of ambulacra ' 

 in the figures of Crotalocrinus pulcher and Enallocrinus scriptus, they 

 appear to me to be seriously in error."^ 



It must be observed first, that in this portion of the paragraph 

 quoted, we were speaking solely of the vault proper, and not of the 

 rays and arms beyond the limits of the calyx. We distinctly 

 refer to the existence of " covering plates and side pieces to which 



1 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1886, p. 339. 



25 



