248 THE VOYAGE OF TT.M.S. CIIAJ^LENGER. 



really belonged to Conocrinux. But as he did not place the latter type among the 

 Apiocriiiid;e together with Bourgaeticrinus and EugeniacriiiuK, it would seem that he had 

 cither abandoned it altogether, or else entirely misunderstood its real character and 

 affinities ; and in the absence of figures or original specimens his account of it would be 

 absolutely unintelligible. 



Rldzoci'inus was first described by Sars in 1864/ and more fully in 1868"; and 

 tliough he was led to consider the anchylosed basals as a top stem-joint, this error was 

 corrected by Pourtales and myself before a fresh diagnosis of Conocrinus was given Ijy 

 de Loriol/ This indeed was only provisional, in default of better knowledge, and owing 

 to Meneghini's failure to find the interbasal sutures in a section through the lower part of 

 the calyx,^ just as in a recent Rhizocrinus or Bathycrinus (PI. Vila. fig. 13), de Loriol 

 was led to consider it probable that the basals " n'existent pas et sont intimement soudees, 

 de maniere a former comme une seule piece centro-dorsale." He thus fell into exactly 

 the same error as had Ijeen made Ijy Sars and Ludwig respecting the recent Rhizocrinus 

 lofotensis. Zittel,° however, who had satisfied himself regarding the presence of inter- 

 basal sutures in Conocrinus pijriformis, recognised the identity of this genus with Rhizo- 

 crinus, but did not adopt the latter name on the ground that " Nach den Regeln der 

 Prioritlit gel)uhrt dem Namen Conocrinus, d'Orb. die Prioritiit, weini gleich die Gattungs- 

 diagnose d'Orbigny's unvollstaudig und theilweise unrichtig ist." 



It seems to me, however, that this is stretching the rules of priority to the widest 

 possiljle limit, or even beyond it ; and that definitions which are incorrect, meaningless, 

 and altogether incomplete have no claim whatever to recognition. Lutken remarked in 

 1864 that the distinction of Conocrinus from Bourgueticrinus was still a matter of 

 uncertainty ; while d'Orbigny's own countrymen Hebert and Munier-Chalmas did not 

 adopt his generic name for the new type which they described as Bourgiieticrinus s^tessi ; 

 and although it was subsequently referred by de Loriol to Conocrinus, and carefully 

 described, the genus Rhizocrinus had meanwhile become thoroughly well established and 

 universally recognised by zoologists. 



Both Sars and de Loriol were in error as to the composition of the calyx in this type ; 

 and a correct definition of Conocrinus was not given until the publication of Zittel's 

 Palajontology in 1879 ; while even as early as 1868,'' and subsequently more fully in 

 1874," Pourtales had correctly jjointed out the characteristic features of Sars's genus 

 Rhizocrinus, especially as regards the presence of basals, which had Ijcen supposed to be 

 either absent altogether, or else modified into a kind of rosette. According to Sars** 

 " Ce qui est remarquable et characteristiquc pour la tigc du Rhizocrinus, c'est son sonimet 



1 Forlmndl. Vulensk Selsk, p. 127. ^ Crinoides vivants, \)\\ 38, 39. 



3 Swiss Crinoiils, p. 191. ' Loc. cit., p. 50. 



'"' Paluiontolcigie, p. 392. " Bull Mus. Comji. ZuuL, vol. i., No. 7, ji. 129. 



' III. Cat. Mus. C'oni}). ZouL, Xo. 8, pp. 27, 23. " Crinoitlus vivants, p. 4. 



