252 NATURAL 8GIENCE [April 



The next step in a wrong direction was that taken by T. & T. 

 Austin (1847),. who, while rightly distinguishing types B and C, 

 retained the name Pentacrinus for the latter, and gave to the former 

 the new name Extracrinus. This name, however, was not accepted 

 by Quenstedt (1874) the chief authority on Liassic crinoids ; and in 

 fact the distinction between types B and C was not admitted until 

 the important works of P. H. Carpenter (1884) and P. de Loriol 

 (1886-9) placed it on a firm basis. This was the opportunity for a 

 correct application of the rules of nomenclature. Unfortunately 

 Carpenter chose to exalt the authority of J. S. Miller, and to regard 

 him as the Linnaeus of the Crinoidea. Hence he took as the geno- 

 type of Pentacrinus, the species first mentioned by Miller, which 

 happened to belong to type C, and for B he adopted the Austins' 

 name, Extracrinus. It is worth noting that Miller himself, in the 

 circular announcing the publication of his book, stated that it would 

 include " the genera Encrinus and Pentacrinus of former Authors." 

 Miller never claimed to be the founder of Pentacrinus ; his diagnosis 

 of it was in terms applicable only to type B, " the Pentacrinus of 

 former authors," and all that was original was the transference of 

 the Encrinus caput-medusae of Lamarck to this genus despite the 

 correct general opinion that it was distinct. Moreover, if he in- 

 tended to date crinoid nomenclature from Miller, Carpenter should 

 have accepted the trivial name Caput-medusae, instead of going back 

 to Isis asteria, Linn. ; also he should, for another genus, have re- 

 tained the name Comatula, instead of going back to De Fremenville's 

 Antedon. As a side-issue it may be mentioned that Caput-medusae 

 was really the name applied by pre-Linnaean naturalists to the 

 branched ophiurids, the Astrophyton of Linck and his successors, 

 and the Gorgonocephalus of Leach. The fossil pentacrinid crowns of 

 Boll were supposed by some to belong to this genus {e.g., Hiemer, 

 1724), but Lamarck's assignment of the name to the Palmier marin 

 merely showed an ignorance of its previous history. 



It is now, I trust, clear that the name Pe7itacrinus belongs to 

 type B. There remains for consideration the name to be applied 

 to C. The earliest name found is Polycerus, Fischer de Waldheim 

 (1811). A statement twice repeated in this author's rare pamphlet, 

 that " le palmier marin est le vrai original de ce genre," might be 

 taken as a convincing argument in favour of the adoption of this 

 name. But the word ' original,' as already explained, was in no 

 sense equivalent to our modern expression ' type-species ' or 

 ' genotype.' Polycerus was the " genre que quelques Naturalistes 

 ont appelle avec Walch pcntacrinite" and was proposed, in allusion 

 to the numerous arm-branches, simply because Waldheim objected 

 to the name Pentacrinus as inappropriate or ambiguous. It is a 

 pure synonym of Pentacrinus, and the above-quoted sentence merely 



