61 



syzygy paramount and to overlook the primitive number of brachials, 

 would mislead in other cases than that of the almost universal two 

 primibrachials of the recent crinoids, in which even Carpenter sees the 

 danger of misleading. Indeed in every case it seems to me that, even 

 if the mode of description of the syzygies adopted by Müller and 

 others be simple and clear, its clearness has been obtained only by 

 obscuring more important facts, just as a candle-flame, however much 

 light it may throw, will cast a shadow if placed before the sun. 

 I propose then: — 



a. That the term »Syzygy« should invariably be used in accordance 

 with its original definition, for »an immoveable suturai union«. ^ 



b. That the term »joint« be restricted to its primitive sense, as 

 translated by the German »Gelenk«, and never used in its secondary 

 sense, as translated by the German »Glied«. 



c. That the German »Glied« be rendered by ossicle or segment, 

 either brachial or columnal as the case may be. 



d. That two ossicles united by syzygy be termed a syzygial pair, 

 or simply a pair. 



e. That in reckoning the number of ossicles or describing the 

 position of pinnules, each ossicle be a unit, no matter what its mode 

 of union with other ossicles : e. g. in Antedon rosacea pinnules are 

 borne by IIBr2, 4, 5, 0, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and not by IIBrj, 3, 9, 14. 



f. That in formulating or describing the position of syzygies (which 

 are joints between ossicles) the units should be joints: e. g., in Ante- 

 don rosacea the 3rd, 9th, and 14th joints are syzygies; in other words, 

 there are syzygies between the 3rd and 4th, 9th and 10th, and 14th 

 and 15th brachials respectively. 



However revolutionary the results of these proposals might be, 

 the proposals themselves can hardly be described as such. I merely 

 desire that a writer should give his terms the same meaning in his 

 systematic descriptions as he does in his morphological discussions. 

 Of the three writers alluded to in these pages, two have passed beyond 

 the reach of criticism; the third, my friend Prof. Jeffrey Bell, with 

 whom I have discussed this matter, agrees that some such reform as 

 the one here proposed is certainly desirable , and kindly permits me 

 to publish his opinion. 



British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 2 December, 1895. 



