474 Retrospective Criticism, 



more so than to any other class of the Crinoidea, as 

 described by Miller, that it must be ranged in that genus; 

 and if it cannot be allowed to be that identical animal, I cer- 

 tainly think it must be a "species nearly resembling it" 

 (Bake well's Geology, 4th edit., xxxvi.), and one that has not 

 been included in Miller's Monograph, and one which has not 

 hitherto been figured or described. , 1( fl 



I have made no allusion to Mr. Cumberland's figures in 

 the Geological Transactions: the comparison which I have 

 instituted between my specimen and Miller's Cyathocrinites 

 will altogether hold good m reference to Mr. Cumberland's 

 figures, as it respects the number and proportion of the bones. 

 I am, Sir, yours, &c. — C. Conway. Pontnewydd Works, 

 July 30. 1833.* 



P. S. Since the above remarks were committed to 

 paper, I have received Mr. Gilbertson's plate, and this ren- 

 ders it necessary that I should add a word or two. Is the 

 animal represented in this plate, and also in Mr. Cumber- 

 land's figures in the Geological Transactions, a Cyathocrinus 

 or not? I much doubt it. My reason for doubt is this : — 

 Mr. Cumberland's figure (vol. v. plate 3. fig. 1.) has two 

 arms proceeding from each scapular bone, and so has also 

 Mr. Gilbertson's: Miller gives but one in every instance. 

 Mr. Gilbertson's specimen, like my own, has also too many 

 bones in the arm, and one series of costal bones too many, to 

 range with the Cyathocrinites; and their relative situations are 

 not the same as those given by Miller. Do not these three 

 figures (Mr. Gilbertson's, Mr. Cumberland's, and my own), by 

 whatever names they are to be distinguished, form a regular 

 and uninterrupted series between the genus E'ncrinus and 

 Cyathocrinus ? They appear to me to pass into each other, 

 if I may so speak, in the following order: — Enerinites moni- 

 liformis, my specimen, Mr. Gilbertson's, Mr. Cumberland's^ 

 and then Cyathocrinus. I merely suggest this for the reader's 

 consideration. — C. C. 



* It appears, from certain remarks made in p. 273., that a note which I 

 appended (p. 126.) to my former communication upon this subject gave 

 offence to some Bristolians, and more particularly to Mr. Richard Smith. 

 I take this opportunity of saying that I had not the most distant intention 

 of offending when I penned that note; nor can I yet perceive that there is 

 any thing offensive in it. Why Mr. R. Smith should feel so exceedingly 

 warm upon the subject I cannot divine, but he certainly let his zeal outrun 

 his discretion upon the occasion ; for I can assure him that, at the time 

 he accuses me of trespassing unnecessarily upon the time of the curator, I 

 neither knew that gentleman personally, nor even by name. To Mr. Stutch- 

 bury's [the curator's] politeness, attention, and liberality, both before and 

 after the publication of the note, which I am sorry to find was taken 

 offensively, I can most cordially bear testimony. — C Conway. 



