1881,] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 363 



1861 (?) Glyptocr. nobilis Hall. Rep. of Progress, Geol. Rep. Wis., p. 21 ; also 20th 



Rep. N. York St. Cab. Nat. Hist., 1867, p. 21, PI. 10, figs. 9, 10. Niagara 



gr. Racine, Wis. 

 (See our remarks under Glyptocrinas and Lampterocrinus.) 

 1857. Glyptocr. ornatus Billings. Geol. Rep. Canada (Rep. of Progress), p. 260 ; 



Ibid., 1859, Decade iv, p. 60, PI. 9, figs. 2 a, b. Trenton limest. Ottawa, 



Canada. 

 1872. Glyptocr. parvus Hall. Desc. New Crin., etc., pt. i, fig. 17, (without descrip- 

 tion): 24th Rep. N. York St. Cab. Nat. Hist., p. 207, PI. 6, fig. 17; Meek, 



1873, Geol. Rep. Ohio, Paleont., i, p. 36, PI. 2, figs. 4 a, b. Hudson River gr. 



Cincinnati, Ohio. (Perhaps a young G. decadactylus.) 

 1857. Glyptocr. priscus Billings. Geol. Rep. Canada (Rep. of Progress), p. 257; 



also, 1859, Ibid., Decade ir, p. 56, PI. 7, figs. 1 a-f. Trenton limest. 



Ottawa, Canada. 

 1857. Glyptocr. ramulosus Billings. Geol. Rep. Canada (Rep. of Progress), p. 258 ; 



1859, Ibid., Decade iv, p. 57, PI. 7, figs, a-f and PI. 8, figs. 1 a-e. Trenton 



limest. Ottawa, Canada. 

 1875. Glyptocr. Shaffer! S. A. Miller. Cincin. Quart. Journ. Sci., vol. ii, p. 277 : 



Journ. Cincin. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1880, Oct., p. 3, PI. 7, fig. 3. Hudson River 



gr. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

 If this is a Glyptocrinus, it evidently is a very young specimen. 

 Syn Glyptocr. Shafferi var. Germanus Miller. Journ. Cincin. Soc. Nat. 



Hist., 1880, Oct., p. 3, PI. 7, fig. 2. 

 *1872. Glyptocr, sabglobosas Meek. (Glyptocr. Dyeri var. subglobosus) Proc. 



Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., p. 314; also Geol. Surv. Ohio, Paleont., i, p. 34, PI. 2, 



fig. 2 c. Hudson River gr. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

 We take this to be an independent species, and not a variety of G. Dyeri, it 



may possibly prove to be a Eeteoorinus. 



2. ABCH.5:0CRINTJS Nov. gen. 

 (apxaiog ancient, xplvov a lily.) 



Among the species described in the Canada Report by Billings 

 as Rhodocrinus and Glyptocrinus, there are several which cannot 

 be brought under either of these, or any other known genus. 

 They differ from Glyptocrinus in their larger size, their surface 

 ornamentation, in having the first radial plates separated by 

 interradials, in their shorter and branching arms, and in having 

 them constructed of a double series of wedge-form pieces. They 

 differ from JReteocrinus in having smaller underbasals, in having 

 the interradial plates systematically arranged, of a less number,and 

 larger size, and also in the arm structure ; from Rhodocrinus in 

 the general form of the bod}', in the large number of secondary 

 radials, and the elevated ridges passing gradually and vertically 

 into arms, which do not spring off laterall}' from the body as in 

 the latter genus. 



