344 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP [1881. 



length, oradually tapering to their tips. Pinnules very long, 

 comi)osed of joints three times longer than wide, and perfectly 

 smooth. Interradials two to three, the first much larger than all 

 others combined, and fully as large as the first radials. Anal area 

 composed of one, three and two pieces, with a depression between 

 the arm bases. Vault constructed of tuberculous pieces of nearly 

 equal size. Anal tube long, extended beyond the arms, con- 

 structed of convex plates, which are interspersed all the way up 

 to the top, with strongly nodose or slightly spiniferous pieces. 

 Column slender, composed of alternately larger and smaller joints, 

 the larger ones with rounded edges. 



Tliis species is interesting for its close affinities with B. Indi- 

 anaensis from Crawfordsville, with which it agrees in all points 

 except that B. Whitei is smaller by one-half, and has a single arm 

 proceeding from each arm opening ; while B. Indiansensis has 

 always two as in the case of B. Lovei and B. Christyi. 



We take pleasure in naming this species in honor of Dr. C. A. 

 White of the National Museum, to whom we are indebted for 

 many favors. 



Geological Position, etc. — This species occurs in considerable 

 quantities at Bono, Ind., but is rare at Canton and Edwardsville, 

 Ind. ; it is found in shaly layers, probably equivalent to the lower 

 l)art of the Keokuk group. 



2.;. EEETMOCRINITS Lyon and Casseday. 



1859. Lyon and Cass. Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts (ser, 2), vol. 28, p. 241. 

 1866. Shumard. (Subgen. ^?) o{ Actinocr.) Cat. Pal. Foss., pt. 1, p. 369. 

 1869. Meek and Wortheu. (Subgen. of Batocr.) Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 



Phila., p. 350. 

 1873. Meek and Worth. (Subgen. oi Batocr.) Geol. Rep. 111., v, p. 368. 



1878. Wachsm. and Spr. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila,, p. 235. 



1879. Zittel. (Subgen. oi Actinocr.) Handb. d, Palseont,, p. 370. 

 Syn. Actinocrinus (in part), Hall, 1861. Bost, Jouin. Nat, Hist. 



Lyon and Casseday's description of this genus was not very 

 satisfactory and partly incorrect, and that is evidently the reason 

 why it has never been recognized as it should be. Hall ignored 

 it altogether, Shumard could not distinguish it from Actinocrinus, 

 and Meek and Worthen, who adopted tlie name, placed it sub- 

 genericall}' at first under Actinocrinus, and later under Batocrinus. 

 It differs from the former in almost the same characters as Bato- 

 crinus, but as distinctly from the latter, in the number and 



