l8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



For the echinoids we have Desor's " Synopsis ", which appeared 

 within a few years and obviously considered d'Orbigny's names. Some 

 were accepted without comment, some were accepted on evidence of 

 specimens, some were adversely criticised, and some were passed 

 over in silence presumably as inadequately defined. Thus : Diadema 

 suhcomplanatuin d'Orb., p. 319, *4i6, is accepted. Wright also ac- 

 cepts this and mentions specimens. Heinicidaris luciensis d'Orb., 

 p. 320, *422 is accepted after examination of specimens from Luc. 

 Wright also accepted this. Diadema calloviensis d'Orb., p. 346, is ac- 

 cepted, but apparently on the evidence of a paratype. Diadema Johae 

 d'Orb., p. 290, *5i3. " Espece voisine du D. subangulare, mais avec 

 les tubercules intermediaires tout autrement disposes ". Desor (" Sy- 

 nopsis ", p. 17) says with justice " la diagnose ci-dessus ne suffit pas 

 pour identifier une espece." Finally Cidaris jarhus, C. jasius, and 

 C. itys d'Orb., p. 222, are not mentioned in the " Synopsis ", perhaps 

 because they were based only on radioles ; the definitions seem to me 

 adequate. Holectypus corallinus d'Orb, vol. 2, p. 26, was accepted by 

 Desor and by Cotteau (1854). Cotteau also (1854) found no diffi- 

 culty in identifying d'Orbigny's Dysastcr supra jurciisis in the field, 

 although he did not regard it as distinct. 



Turning to the Crinoidea we find De Loriol in " Paleontologie 

 Frangaise " exercising a similar discrimination, accepting or rejecting. 

 His approach to the " Prodrome " differs from that of the echinoid 

 specialists mentioned because he had the type material before him. He 

 refrains none-the-less from accepting a name merely because he can 

 identify the holotype. He accepts Cyclocrinus precaforius (vol. i, 

 p. 320) and Millericrinus rotiformis (vol i, p. 346) without criti- 

 cising d'Orbigny's definitions. Of Millericrinus hachelieri (vol. i, 

 p. 346) he says : " la diagnose n'est pas comprehensible ", and the 

 material in the d'Orbigny Collection does not enable him to interpret 

 the species. There are seven specimens in the collection labelled Mil- 

 lericrimis pidchellus from the type locality " dont quatre seulement 

 correspondent a la description du Prodrome" (vol. i, p. 346), from 

 which statement one infers that the holotype is not always so easily 

 ascertained as Professor Boule implies. 



Several species are described by De Loriol from the type material 

 and he adopts d'Orbigny's names, although he either asserts or implies 

 that the " Prodrome " definition was inadequate or misleading. See 

 for instance his remarks on Pentacrinus oceani, P. marcousanus, Mil- 

 lericrinus convexus, and Pentacrinus huvignieri, which last he makes 

 a synonym of P. nicoleti Desor, solely on the evidence of types of both 



