CLEIOCKINL'S. 109 



belong together. This stem is similar to the two last mentioned fragments, 

 and it, together with the crown E., may well be taken as an example of 

 C. magnificiis, of which no portion of the calyx has been seen before. If 

 so, it is no doubt a good species, and represents a mature development of 

 the type of C. regius. The preservation of the calyx is so poor that not 

 much can be made of it beyond its general appearance. The proximal series 

 of plates at the base are not well defined, but the arm bases are visible for 

 a sufficient distance around to show that it had at least one hundred free 

 arms. As it lies flattened, the top of the calyx at the arm bases is fully 

 five inches in width, and when in its natural form it must have been nearly 

 four inches in diameter, — one of the largest and most magnificent stalked 

 Crinoids known. The stem as preserved is thirty inches long, and was 

 probably six inches longer; it is five eighths of an inch in diameter at the 

 upper end, and seven eighths at the root; very slightly pentagonal above, 

 and round below. It is composed of very thin columnars, much thinner 

 than that of C. regius, there being about sixty to an inch generally, and 

 probably more near the distal end. The axial canal at the upper end is 

 obscurely pentagonal. The stem terminates in a root similar to that of 

 C. regius. 



The other two crowns are very much alike. Specimen B-C (PI. I., 

 Figs. 3 a, b) is the smaller of the two, and doubtless represents a younger 

 stage. It has but six arms to the ray, so far as can be observed, or about 

 thirty in all ; whereas specimen A has eight arms in most of the rays, or 

 about forty in all. If we had other specimens showing a constant differ- 

 ence in this respect, this might be ground for specific separation. But it 

 seems very probable that, as is often the case, there is considerable vari- 

 ability in the number of arms, which is, indeed, indicated in specimen A, 

 where one ray has only seven arms. It is a fact well established by ob- 

 servation, but persistently ignored by some describers of species, that the 

 number of arms in Crinoids may be a good specific character in some groups, 

 and entirely worthless in others. These two specimens have about the same 

 form and proportions, being elongate conical and slender, whereas specimen 

 E, with its enormous development of arms, although similarly flattened by 

 pressure, is robust and greatly expanded, so that it is proportionate])* much 

 lower and wider. Specimen B-C, therefore may be taken as another rep- 

 resentative of C. regius. 



The two known species may accordingly be defined as follows : — 



