I 



I 881. J NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 395 



The interradial areas are composed of several series of two 

 plates each, except the first series which has but one piece, 

 lesting in the upper notch between two adjoining first radials. It 

 is not known whether the anal side is distinct, nor has the dome 

 I'cen observed. 



Arms short, branching, single jointed. Column round. 



These characters, even if correctly interpreted, are not sufficient 

 to distinguish Schizoc7v'nvs from Glyj)tocrinus. We are inclined 

 to think that the type specimen of Sch. nodosus is a young speci- 

 men of some G'/yj>/oer//H/.s', unless, perhaps, Sc/i/zocrm?/.s represents 

 paheontologically an earlier stage of the former. The interradial 

 and interaxillary plates seem to be less developed, the arms 

 are short, simple jointed, and the second division of the ray, which 

 in Glyptocrinus generally takes place in the bod}-, occurs in the 

 free arms. Hall's second species, still more fragmentarv, is 

 l>robabIy a very different thing. 



Geological Position, etc. — Both species are from the Trenton 

 limestone of New York. 



1S47. Schizocrinus nodosus Hall. Palaeont. New York, vol. i, p. 81, PI. 27, figs. 



1 a-p. Trrnton limest. Herkimer Co., New Yoik. 

 1847. (?) Sohizocr. striatus Hall. Palaeont. New York. vol. i, p. 316, PI. 28, figs. 



4 a, b, c. Tren'on limest. Middleville, New York. 



3. (?) SCTPHOCRIiniS Hall (not Zenker, 1833). 



(?) CTJPULOCRINUS D'Orbigny.) 



1847. Scyphocrinus Hall. Palaeont. New York, vol. 1, p. 85. 

 1850. Cupuloerinus d'Orbigny. Prodr. de Paleont., i, p. 23. 



{ScypJiocrinus Zenker, 1833. Beitr. Naturgesch d. Urwald, p 26, 

 PI. 4. and Miinster, Beitr. iii, p. 112.) 



The name l)eing preoccupied by Zenker, d'Orbigny proposed 

 lu its place Cupuloerinus with Scyphocrinus heterocostalis Hall, 

 raid a species of Taxocrinus as the tj'pes. 



The form has been generally considered as closely allied to 

 Schizocrinus. in which we cannot concur. We think d'Orbigny 

 is correct in placing it with — or near — Taxocrinus, but to verify 

 this, better specimens are required, and we will not attempt a 

 generic descrip'tion from the present material. 



(? 1847. Scyphoor. heterocostalis Hall. Palaeont. New York, vol. i, p. 85, fig?. 3 

 a-f. Herkimer Co., New York. 



