REPORT ON THE CRINOIDEA. 191 
of the “ Crinactinota,” viz., the Cystids. On the other hand, according to the scheme 
on p. 421, “ Anthodiata” was the name proposed by Burmeister for the Blastoids, while 
the term “ Brachiata” was also his, and included the true Crinoids and the Cystids. On 
pp. 8, 227, and 230, however, the term “ Brachiata” is used by Bronn to denote the true 
Crinoids only, and it is attributed to Miller. Zittel has followed Bronn in this respect, 
and, as I believe, erroneously. For I have searched Miiller’s writings on Crinoids 
repeatedly without finding this expression, though frequent reference is made to the 
“Crinoidea Tessellata mit Armen.” 
After various unsuccessful attempts to discover where Burmeister’s nomenclature was 
published, I applied to Prof. F. J. Bell, who was kind enough to make a search in the 
library of the Zoological Department at the Museum of Natural History, with the 
following result. In his Zoonomische Briefe, published at Leipzig in 1856 (vol. 1. 
p. 243), Burmeister gives the following “‘ Systematische Uebersicht der Crinoideen.” 
I. Crinoidea anthodiata. 
1. Cystideen. 2. Blastoideen. 
Il. Crinoidea brachiata. 
3. Tessellaten. 4. Articulaten. 5. Gesippten (Crinoidea costata). 6. 
Holopus. 
This classification of Burmeister’s deserved more attention than it has hitherto 
received ; for it was the first which clearly brought out the difference between the true 
Crinoids with segmented arms attached to the radials and the “ Anthodiata” or Blastoids 
and Cystids, in which there are either no arms at all or structures of an entirely 
different nature from those of the true Crinoids. In this, as in other respects, the 
Blastoids and Cystids at once differ from the Crinoids and resemble each other. In fact 
they are so closely linked together that it is extremely difficult to refer forms like 
Hybocystites and Cystoblastus to one group rather than to the other.’ 
The term Crinoidea should, I think, be limited to the strictly brachiate forms for 
which it was proposed by Miller; and it is much less applicable to the stalked Echino- 
derms generally than Leuckart’s name “ Pelmatozoa.” But except as regards this 
question of nomenclature Burmeister’s classification agrees far better with our present 
knowledge than many of those published before or since his time, e.g., that of @Orbigny, 
Pictet, or of Dujardin and Hupé. 
Low as the Cystids had fallen in Bronn’s classification from the ordinal position to 
1 Quenstedt has solved the difficulty respecting the systematic position of Cystoblastus by describing it twice over. 
On p. 684 of his “Encriniden” it appears among the Cystids, and is figured on Tab. 113, fig. 89; but on p. 724 it is 
described as a Blastoid, and it is figured on Tab. 114, fig. 98, under the name of Cycloblastus. 
