118 Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 



of the anibulacral furrow, and extend over, upon the plates, in the 

 bottom of the ambulaeral furrow, and up, ou the sides of the adambu- 

 lacral plates. The protection established, by this arrangement, and 

 that afforded, by the spines, seems, in this species, to have removed 

 the necessity, for the usual marginal plates. 



This species is founded, upon a single specimen, embedded in a 

 slab. The madreporiform tubercle, the other plates of the dorsal side, 

 ambulaeral ossicles, and other parts, unknown. 



This unique specimen was found, in the upper part of the Hudson 

 River Group, near Waynesville, Ohio, and is from the magnificent col- 

 lection of I. H. Harris, Esq., of Waynesville, in whose honor, 1 take 

 great pleasure, in proposing the specific name. 



LlCHENOCRINUS PATTERSONI, n. Sp. 

 Plate X., fig. 6, natural size. 



fig. Qa, magnified two diameters. 



Body robust, round or sub-circular, plano-convex, with a depression 

 around the column, composed of numerous plates of unequal size, 

 having no regular geometrical form, and disposed without any definite 

 order of arrangement. If the plates, in the specimen illustrated, could 

 be arranged, in regular concentric series, there would be, about eighteen 

 ranges, between the column and the circumference. 



The plates are smooth. 



The column-like appendage is large, round and composed, as in 

 other species, of five ranges of thin plates. 



The plates, in this species, are as large as the plates in L. crateri- 

 formis, and as numerous as in L. dyeri, but they have neither the ar- 

 rangement nor form of either. 



Mr. W. J. Patterson, an energetic and successful ei»llector, in whose 

 honor I have proposed the specific name, found the specimen illus- 

 trated, on the Kentucky shore, opposite the foot of Fifth street, 

 Cincinnati. If it belonged to the rocks exposed, at that place, it 

 would be of the age of the Utica Slate, but if it was drifted, it 

 may be of the age of the Hudson River Group. The small piece of 

 limestone, upon which it rests, is water worn, and furnishes no evi- 

 dence to assist us in determining the age. The only reason 1 have, for 

 thinking, that it may be of the age of the Hudson River Group is, that 

 a few years ago, I found a fragment of the same, or asimilar species, in 

 the upper part of the Hudson River Group, near Versailles, Indiana. 

 All we can say, therefore, of its age, is, that it was found with rocks 

 of the age of the Utica Slate, but under such circumstances, that it 

 may have been transported there, from rocks of the age of the Hudson 

 River Group. 



