4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM Vol. 83 



Horizon and locality. — As noted above, Rominger's original label 

 reads " He'derberg group, Clark County, Indiana." From the lithology 

 of the matrix and the associated corals it is evident that the specimen 

 was collected in the Jeffersonville limestone (Onondaga, Middle 

 Devonian), probably from the lower coral zone. 



r?/pe.— U.S.N.M. no. 90094. 



LECYTHOCRINIDAE, new family 



The family Lecythocrinidae is referable to the Cyathocrinoidea and 

 is nearly related to the Gasterocomidae. Lpcythocrinus has previously 

 been placed in the Cyathocrinidae by Bather (1900) and following him 

 in the equivalent subfamily Cyathocrininae by Springer (1913). 

 Jaekel (1918) placed Lecythocrimis in the Gasterocomidae. Two 

 genera are here referred to the familj^ Lecythocrinidae, Lecythocrinus 

 J. Miiller and Corynecrinus, new genus. Both are from approximately 

 equivalent horizons in the Middle Devonisyi. 



The column has a large lumen that may be divided b}^ partitions 

 into a central canal and four peripheral canals. There is no differentia- 

 tion of a special aruil plate, two of the proximal tube plates normally 

 resting directly on the posterior basal. The anal tube is long and 

 relatively slender. 



The family differs from the Cyathocrinidae in the character of the 

 column and the lack of a special anal plate. From the Gasterocomidae 

 the Lecythocrinidae differ mainly in the possession of an anal tube, 

 although it is probable that the brachial structures also differed wideh^ 



Inasmuch as there is considerable bibliographic confusion in regard 

 to the status of Lecythocrinus, v.hich I have chosen as the type of the 

 new family, it seems desirable briefly to give the history of the genus. 



J. Miiller (1858, p. 196) proposed the new genus Lecythocrinus with 

 L. eifelianus, new species, as the only species referred to it. This 

 must of necessity be the genotype. Schultze (1867) figured the 

 original specimicn of Miiller and gave additional figures of other 

 specimens. He did not recognize either the genus Lecythocrinus or 

 the species eifelianus of Muller, placing the genus in synonymy with 

 Taxocrinus and the species in synonjmiy with his "new species" T. 

 briareus. The excuse for the latter high-handed measure was that 

 Miiller's species was based on an abnormal specimen. Wachsmuth 

 and Springer (1880, p. 313; sep., p. 88) cite Lecythocrinus as "Zittel 

 (not Joh. Miiller)" and follow Schultze in tlu-owing L. eifelianus in 

 synonymy with Schultze's T. briareus. Wachsnuith (1896, p. 156) 

 cites Lecythocrinus as "Miiller, emend. Zittel" and in a footnote says 

 in part: "The type-specimen upon which this genus was founded 

 {L. eifelianus Miill.)" etc. He also labels figure 261, page 157, wdiich 

 is a copy of Schultze's restoration of the species, "Lecythocrinus 

 eifelianus Miill." Bather (1900, p. 175) quotes Lecythocrinus as 



