Nomenclature Results. 263 
4. Nomenclature. 
During the progress of this work various questions of nomenclature have pre- 
sented themselves, or have been raised by others. With most of these I have 
attempted to deal in special papers, but it will be convenient to give a brief sum- 
mary here. 
The name Encrinus has had a curious history, but for about a century it has 
been generally if not universally used for the well known Stone-lily of the Muschel- 
kalk, to which it was applied by Lacumunp (1669) and his successors. Indeed, 
though isolated portions of the Lilium lapidewm may have received special names, 
the fossil as a whole has never been called anything but Encrinus or Encrinites. 
Naturally, before detailed study led to the discrimination of the various genera of 
Crinoidea, the name Encrinus was often extended to other fossils now known by 
distinctive names. Similarly, when living stalked crinoids were first dredged in the 
Caribbean Sea, and when it was recognised that they belonged to the same class 
of animals, they also were provisionally called Encrinus. In this sense, as has 
already been noted on p. 30, we find the name Encrinus applied by Exuis (1762), 
BiumenpacH (1779—1807), and others. But, as reference to those writers will show, 
they had no intention of removing the accepted name from the Triassic fossil to 
the recent animal. Unfortunately the earlier systematic works in which a binominal 
Latin nomenclature was used, beginning with the tenth edition of Linnarzus (1758), 
dealt almost entirely with recent animals, so that the chance of Encrinus being 
legitimized in its usual sense was seriously diminished. 
Consequently Mr. Austin H. Crark, who has recently attempted to apply the 
modern rules of nomenclature in a very rigid manner (1908, 1909), maintains that 
Encrinus should be ascribed to BLumenpacu (1779) with Jsis asteria Linn. as genotype. 
Mr. Frank Sprincer, however, in a weighty paper (1909) points out that ANDREAE 
(1763) formally proposed the name Eucrinus coralloides for certain fossils, and that 
(if no prior use can be found) the name Eucrinus must be ascribed to ANDREAE 
and interpreted according to the fossils mentioned by him. Unfortunately, both 
Mr. CrarkK (1908) and Mr. Sprincer (1909) quote ANnpREAE incorrectly. ANDREAE’S 
reference to D. Brickner’s «Merkwiirdigkeiten der Landschaft Basel» is not to «Part 6» 
as stated by Mr. Crark, nor to «Table 8 of the eighth Stueck» as Mr. SprINGER 
says, but to «die in dem siebenten Stiicke... beschriebene und auf der siebenten 
Tafel abgebildete Corallenschwamme», namely «die sechs Stiicke g. h, i. k. 1. m». 
This plate, with the description, not by Brickner but, as both Brickner and ANDREAE 
testify, by Joh. Jakob Bawter, was published in 1752. The fossils denoted are 
not those mentioned by pe Lortot in his «Crinoides fossiles de la Suisse» and 
referred by him to Millericrinus echinatus. They are thick stem-fragments or branch- 
ing roots of various species of Apiocrinidae, but to which species or even to 
which genus they should be referred cannot, in my opinion, be determined from the 
figures and descriptions, and the silence of pr LorioL on the matter indicates that 
he shared that opinion. 
If then it were necessary to accept Eucrinus AnpReAE, the conclusion would 
not be that drawn by Mr. Sprincer. If interpreted by the fossils referred to, the 
name would be merely a published name, based on an indeterminable species, and 
