50 BULLETIN 64, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



absence of beveled sutures. The surface also differs in being smooth 

 instead of "covered with radiating ridges or rows of tubercles." 



The form suggests that of E. magnus, but it differs from that species 

 in the fact that the flattening of the sides is radial instead of inter- 

 radial. A ] so, the second secundibrach is much smaller than the first 

 and quadrilateral, its upper side forming a straight line on which 

 rest two small tertibrachs. 



Formation and locality. — Brownsport limestone. Decatur County, 

 Tennessee. 



Cat. No. 39961, U.S.N.M. 



EUCALYPTOCRINUS MILLIGANI Miller and Gurley. 



Plate 5, fig. 13. 



Eucalyptocrinites amicus Troost, Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci., II (read 1849), 1850, 



p. 61 (nomen nudum); MSS., 1850. 

 Eucalyptocrinites floridus Troost, MSS., 1850. 

 Eucaly ptocrinus conicus Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, II, No. 2, 1866, 



p. 370 (catalogue name). — Wachsmuth and Springer, Rev. Paheocrinoidea, 



III, 1885, p. 128 (catalogue name). — Miller, North Amer. Geol. and Pal., 



1889, p. 244. 

 Eucaly ptocrinus milliganx Miller and Gurley, Bull. No. 10, 111. State Mus. 



Nat. Hist,, 1896, p. 88, pi. v, figs. 4, 5, 6. 



The following description of Eucalyptocrinites floridus is by Troost: 



The whole surface of this specimen is injured; no articulations of the plates that 

 compose the cup are perceptible, and the summit is still more damaged. I can only- 

 say that in its general form, it resembles the E. splendidus, [E. lindahli] but its cup is 

 more acute conical; the pairs of fingers [arms] are lanceolate terminating almost in a 

 point near the summit. An essential character which this species possesses, and 

 which distinguishes it from all the Tennessee species of Eucalyptocrinites, is that the 

 septa which separate the pairs of fingers, [arms] increase in thickness in proportion as 

 they approach the summit and in proportion as the fingers decrease in breadth, so that 

 the loss which is suffered by the fingers is made up by the increase of the size of the 

 septa and consequently the diameter of the whole remains uniform to near the sum- 

 mit. Examining the figure of the E. splmdidus [A 1 , lindahli} we see that this is not 

 the case with that species, the septa near the summit are of the same dimension as 

 near the cup, and the finger diminishing in size, the diameter of the superior part of 

 the fossil must in the same ratio become smaller. 



Observations. — Eucalyptocrinites floridus Troost is apparently of the 

 same species as E. milligani Miller and Gurley. The constriction of 

 the body is less pronounced than in the specimens figured by Miller 

 and Gurley (plate *5, fig. 5). The upper portion of the arms with the 

 intervening plates is not preserved in Troost's specimen, but enough 

 remains to show that the long interbrachial plates divide above and 

 separate, but less widely than those shown in the figures of Miller and 

 Gurley. 



Three small calices described by Troost as Eucalyptocrinites conicus 

 are referred to this species on account of the general resemblance in 

 form and in the character of the basal excavation, although they do 



