Retrospective Criticism, 



561 



Conway should doubt (p. 470.), his specimen being a cyatho- 

 crinite ; but to prove that it is the Cyathocrimtes tuberculatus 

 (of Miller), I have sent you another copy of the engraving 

 (jig, 73.), with the plates which form the body more strongly 



74 



marked than they appear to the naked eye, but yet as accurately 

 as the specimen, which is rather a distorted one, will allow. 

 The line of dots from a terminates at the alimentary canal; 

 that from b upon one of the five plates surrounding it, which 

 form the pelvis; c is placed upon the costals; d 9 upon the 

 scapulae ; V, upon the first joint of the arm, which, in Miller's 

 figure of this species, is placed upon the upper surface of the 

 scapula, and not, as in Cyathocrinites planus, upon a horseshoe- 

 like impression on the outside of it ; f, upon the second joint 

 of the arm ; g 9 upon the wedge-formed joint of the arm, from 

 which the hands, &c, arise. Aided by this explanation, you 

 will, I think, be convinced, on comparing this engraving with 

 the figure given of Mr. Conway's specimen, in p. 126., that 

 they are of the same species. In that figure the whole of the 

 pelvis, and nearly the whole of the costals, are hid by the 

 column. Only one scapula, the plate which rests upon the 

 column on the left, is in its natural situation. Joints of 

 the arm, marked e 9 f, g, in the engraving {Jig. 73.), occupy 

 the place where another scapula ought to have stood, and 

 have, in consequence, been mistaken by Mr. Conway for the 

 costals of an E'ncrinus, upon which he has " reconstructed," 

 or rather constructed, his specimen of a nondescript. 



As I have not access to the Geological Transactions, I 

 Vol. VI. — No. 36. 



o o 



