REPORT ON THE CRINOIDEA, 269 
the basals, as it crosses the former at a variable distance from their lower angles. Ina 
few cases, however, the basiradial suture is more uniformly horizontal, and not marked 
by alternate elevations and depressions (Pl. X. fig. 3); so that the furrow really does 
indicate the line of separation between the basals and radials. But this is far from being 
the case in Prof. Perrier’s drawing of the Democrinus calyx. 
The fragmentary condition or absence of the arms in his specimens is nothing unusual. 
Only one-third of all the individuals of Rhizocrinus rawsoni which T have examined have 
any arms at all, including the young form represented in Pl. LIII. fig. 7. There may, 
however, be as many as one hundred and twenty joints, or rather sixty syzygial pairs, 
with pinnules on all but the first three or four. But they are very apt to break away at 
the syzygy in the first brachial, which Perrier speaks of as an articulation between a 
radial axillary and the lowest arm-joint. This had happened in two of his three speci- 
mens of Democrinus, which are “ totalement dépourvus de bras; le troisieme n’en présente 
que des restes trés courts, d’aprés Jesquels il est aisé de voir que les bras devaient étre 
extremement peu développés.” The drawing of this individual which he has sent me 
shows that its longest arm-fragment consists of only five joints, z.e., two composite 
brachials and the hypozygal of a third. This fully accounts for the absence of pinnules, 
which never appear below the third epizygal in any Rhizocrinus ; and I have little doubt 
that further research will prove the existence of properly developed, pinnule-bearing arms 
in the so-called Democrinus. But I do not suppose that they are quite as fully developed 
as those of the Caribbean variety of Rhizocrinus rawsont. This has a stem more than 
twice the width of that of Democrinus; and it is generally more robust, though the 
ealyx is distinctly shorter and broader than in Perrier’s type. 
The “Travailleur” specimens are of interest, both on account of their aberrant form, 
and because they give another locality for Rhizocrinus rawsoni in the East Atlantic in 
addition to the two discovered by the “ Porcupine” in 1869; while the “Talisman” 
met with another locality of the type during the dredgings of 1883." 
It is remarkable for its close resemblance to the Rhizocrinus londinensis from the 
London Clay, isolated stem-joints of which were referred by Forbes” to Bourgueticrinus. 
But a well preserved and very characteristic calyx has since been discovered, and is now 
to be seen in the Natural History Museum at South Kensington. 
1 Democrinus dies hard. Perrier’s mistake about the condition of the basals in Rhizocrinus was pointed out in the 
Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 5, vol. xi., 1883, p. 334. Under these circumstances the character on which he relied as 
distinguishing Democrinus from Rhizocrinus became non-existent; and I therefore expressed my conviction that 
Democrinus Parfaiti and Rhizocrinus rawsoni were identical. Perrier, however, appears to be of a different opinion, 
for in the Preliminary Report of Mons. A. Milne-Edwards, the President of the “ Talisman” Commission of 1883, 
Democrinus is specially mentioned as one of the captures (Comptes rendus, t. xevii. p. 1392) ; while in the semi-official 
account of the collection published in La Nature (No. 572, p. 391) by Mons. H. Filhol, also a member of the 
Commission, particular reference is made to Democrinus Parfaiti. As the addition of a new generic type to the family 
Bourgueticrinide is of considerable importance in many ways, Prof. Perrier’s revised account of its characters will be 
awaited with interest, both by zoologists and by palzontologists. 
2 British Tertiary Echinoderms, p. 36. 
