60 BULLETIN 82, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



In January, 1923, the present author published a revision of the recent representa- 

 tives of the family Pentacrinidae, none of which were found to be congeneric with 

 fossil forms. The genera accepted are : 



Metacrinus (genotype Metacrinus wyinllii P. H. Carpenter, 1884). 



Saracrinus (genotype Metacrinus nobilis P. H. Carpenter, 1884). 



Cenocrinus (genotype Pentacrinites ca put-medusae Miller, 1821 =Encrlnus capnt- 

 medusae Lamarck, 1816 = 7s("s asteria Linne, 1766). 



Teliocrinus (genotype Teliocrinus asper Doderlein, 1912 = Hypalocrmus springeri 

 A. H. Clark, 1909; this species is also the type of Comastrocrinus A. H. C. described 

 later in the same year). 



Endoxocrinus (genotype Encrinus parrae Gervais, 1835 = Encrinus milleri Guild- 

 ing, 1828 [not Encrinites milleri von Sch]otheim,1822] =Pentacrinus mulleri Oersted, 

 1856). 



Diplocrinus (genotype Pentacrinus madearanus Wyville Thomson, 1877 [here 

 designated]). 



Annacrinus (genotype Pentacrinus un/ville-thomsoni [Jeffreys, nomen nudum] 

 Wyville Thomson, 1872). 



Neocrinus (genotype Pentacrinus decorus Wyville Thomson, 1864). 



Hypalocrinus (genotype Pentacrinus naresianus P. H. Carpenter, 1882). 



In 1925 Dr. Torsten Gislen described a new genus, Porphyrocrinus, including the 

 single species P. verrucosus, in the family Phrynocruiidae, for which family he gave 

 an emended diagnosis. In the same paper he described Democrinus globularis. 



In 1927 Doctor Gislen published a very important memoir on the crinoids col- 

 lected by Dr. Th. Mortensen in Japanese waters in 1914-1916, in which the following 

 new species appeared: 



Comanthus parviciira f. vaniipinna. Perissometra carinata. 



Prometra perplexa. Monachometra mortenseni. 



Democrinus hraueri var. japonicus. 



Since the completion of volume 1 Doctor Gislen has published ' a most important 

 work dealing with the recent crinoids from almost every point of view and bringing 

 out an extraordinary amount of new information. 



Much of this work is devoted to a critical discussion of Parts 1 and 2 of Volume 

 1, and in several instances he takes issue with my conclusions, always on the basis 

 of an exhaustive study of a large amount of new material. 



As we have each stated our case fully, there is nothing to be gained by restate- 

 ment. The relative merits of our respective positions will be determined by subse- 

 quent workers. 



The only matter which need be considered here is his suggested classification of the 

 recent comatulids. 



The recent comatulids I had grouped in two suborders, the Oligophreata and 

 the Macrophreata, which are abundantly distinct. Gislen suggested that they 

 should be grouped not m two but in four natural groups or tribes of equal value. His 

 classification is as follows: 



' Ecbinoderm Studios. Zoologiska Bidrag frta Uppsala [Zoologische Beitrttge aus Uppsala], vol. 9, 1924. 



