6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 74 



itself as originally marked in ink. The obviously artificial structures 

 shown and described could scarcely have been independently invented 

 and must have been based on the assumed plate arrangement in speci- 

 men 36. Again l^jon had catalogued his collection, assigning a sepa- 

 rate serial number to each species. These numbers were printed and 

 the bits of paper glued to the specimens. Here we find as noted above 

 that the same number (119) Ava.^ aiRxed to both specimens 3a and 

 3&. In Lyon's manuscript catalogue this number is identified as 

 Vasocrinus valens. It appears, then, that the description of V. 

 valens^ the generic diagnosis, and the generic diagram were com- 

 posited from specimens 3« and 36, although the latter was subse- 

 quently referred to the other species V. sculptus. In the present 

 paj3er specimen 36 is referred to Yasoennus valens and made a co- 

 type, despite Lyon's treatment, inasmuch as an essential part of his 

 specific description is based on the specimen. 



Specimen 3c, d^ e is in a good state of preservation although some- 

 what weathered. The tegmen is not preserved, but all the plates of 

 the cup show clearly. Here again Lyon's plate outlines have been 

 erased in order to mark them in properly. The specimen bears the 

 printed serial number 120. This specimen is here considered as the 

 liolotype of y asocrinus sculptus Lyon. 



We have seen that Lyon described two new species under his new 

 genus Vasocrinus^ basing his descriptions on three specimens, here 

 identified by the numbers originally used by Lyon on his Plate 3^, 

 36, and 3c-e, respectively. It now remains to determine the mutual 

 interrelationships of the three specimens and choose a genotype for 

 Vasocrinus. Lyon himself evidently based his generic description on 

 V. valens. The generic diagnosis agrees best with the specific de- 

 scription of Vasoci'inus vahns, and Lyon himself (p. 485) cites the 

 generic diagram as V. valens. The description of V. valens., however, 

 was not made wholly from specimen 3«, in spite of Lyon's declaration 

 elsewhere quoted that this was the unique specimen of the species. As 

 noted above, this specimen is an imperfect dorsal cup, lacking the 

 entire posterior interradius. Furthermore, no arm ossicles are shown 

 in Figure 2>a nor are any attached to the specimen itself. Neverthe- 

 less, arm ossicles are described in the text. Lyon's generic diagram, 

 Figure 3, is obviously based primarily ^n specimen 3a, as shown by 

 the size of the plates. As specimen 3a lacks two radials and the pos- 

 terior interradius, it is evident that the missing plates were obtained 

 elsewhere. Such liberties are not unknown in the case of authors of 

 later generations, unfortunately. The source of supply for these 

 plates could only have been specimen Figure 36. It will be noted that 

 Lyon described his genus as having but one anal plate, though in 

 his specific description of V. sculptus he notes the presence of two 





