368 TRANS. OF THE ACAD. OF SCIENCE. 



ECHINO-ENCRINITES, Von Meyer, 1826. 



anatif ormis, Hall, 1847. Pal. N. York, vol. i., p. 89, pi. 29, fig. 4. 



— TV. — Turin, Lewis Co., New York, 

 fenestrate,* Troost, 1850. List Orin. Tenn.,Proc. Amer. Assoc. 

 Camb. Meet., p. 00. — Tennessee. 



ECHINOENCRINUS, v. Arch.eocidaris. 



ECHINUS, v. Arch.eocidaris. 



EDRIOASTER, Billings, 1858. Canad. Org. Rem. Dec. iii., p. 82.— 



Cyclaster, Billings, 1857. Rep. Geol. Surv. Canada, p. 292. 



Bigsbyi — Cyclaster Bigsbyi, Billings, 1857. Rep. Geol. Sorv.Ca- 



nada, p. 293. — Edrioaster Bigsbyi, Billings, 1858. Canad. 



Org. Rem., Dec. iii., p. 82. — Trent. — Ottawa, Canada. 



EDRIOCRINUS, Hall, 1859. Pal. N. York, vol. iii., pt. 1, p. 119. 

 pocilliformis, Hall, 1859. Pal. N. York, vol. iii., p. 121, pi. 5, fig. 



8-12.— L. H.— Helderberg Mts., Albany, New York, 

 pyriformis, Hall, 1862. 15th Rep. Reg. State Cab. New York, p. 



116, fig. 1-22.— U. H.— Near Utica, New York, 

 sacculus, Hall, 1859. Pal. N. York, vol. iii., pt. 1, p. 143, pi. 87, 



fig. 1-22. — Orisk. — Cumberland, Maryland. 



EL^EACRINUS— Pentremites, Troost, 1841. 6th Rep. Geol. Tenn. 

 — NccL,EOCRiNUS.t Conrad, 1843. Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

 Phil., vol. viii.,' p. 280.— Olivanites, Troost, 1850. Cat. 

 Crin.Tenn. — Pentremites (Beadle), D'Orbigny, Prod. Pal., 

 vol. i. — El,eacrinus, Roemer, 1851. Monog. Blastoidea, p. 

 55.— Id. 1856. Leth. Geog. Kohlen Gebirg., p. 204.— Oli- 

 vanites, Lyon, 1857. Geol. Surv. Kentucky, vol. iii., p. 

 490. — Nucleocrinus,, Lyon & Casseday, 1859. Proc. Am. 

 Ac, vol. iv., p. 295. — El.bacrinus, Bronn, 1860. Die Klass. 

 Ord. b. Thier-Reichs, bd. 2, Aktinozoen taf. 23. — Shu- 

 mard, 1862. Proc. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. ii., p. 111. 

 — Nucleocrinus, Hall, 1862. 15th Rep. Reg. State Cab. 

 N. York, p. 146.— Id., Dana, 1863. Man. Geol., p. 274. 



angularis — Olivanites angularis, Lyon, 1857. Geol. Kentucky, 

 vol. iii., p. 492, pi. 5, fig. 2. — Nucleocrinus angularis, Lyon 

 & Casseday, 1859. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts & Sei., vol. iv., 



t I have elsewhere (Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. ii., p. Ill) given my 

 reasons for adopting the name Eloeacrinus in preference to Nvcleorrinus, 

 although the latter was proposed considerably in advance of the former. 

 Strictly adhering to the laws which govern Naturalists in such cases, we 

 cannot in justice to Rcemer set aside his name. The description of Conrad 

 is not only extremely imperfect^ but it is entirely erroneous, and calcu- 

 lated to mislead the student in his efforts to identify the fossil he attempt- 

 ed to describe. In a word, no one could possibly recognize the genus from 

 Conrad's description, since there is no section of the Family Blastoidea 

 presenting such a structure. Conrad's entire description is as follows :— 

 "Nucleocrinus, Conrad. This Genus differs from Pentremites, Say, in 

 having only one perforation at the top, which is central." Now, if we ex- 

 amine Prof. Hall's excellent description of the same fossil in the 15th Rep. 

 of the Regents of the State Cabinet of New York, published in 1852, ten 

 years after Rcemer's description of Elceacrinvs, we find that there arc at 

 the summit, in addition to the central opening (closed in perfect specimens 

 by small calcareous plates?), five pairs of ovarian apertures, as in the typi- 

 cal species of Pentremites ; besides, there is also an anal opening. 



