272 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 
No further definition of Chladocrinus was ever given by Prof. L. Agassiz; and it is 
not surprising therefore that the genus has never been accepted by naturalists. The 
remaining type which is supposed to be generically distinct from Pentacrinus, is the 
Cainocrinus of Forbes.’ It has recently been revived by de Loriol;’ but since it was 
based on a misconception, and its only distinctive character depends upon a feature 
which is very variable among the recent species, viz., the presence or absence of a closed 
ring of basals, I see no good in retaining it (see pp. 281-283). Practically, therefore, 
owing to the well marked characters of Hxtracrinus and our want of knowledge of 
Balanocrinus, a definition of Pentacrinus for the study of recent forms need only 
emphasise those points in which it differs from Metacrinus. I have, however, referred 
to one or two characters in which the genus differs from Hatracrinus. 
Genus Pentacrinus, Miller, 1821.’ 
1761. Palmier marin, Guettard, Mémoires de Mathématique et de Physique tirés des Registres de ]’Academie 
Royale des Sciences, de ’année MDCCLYV., Paris, 1761, p. 225. 
1762. Encrinus, Ellis, Phil. Trans., vol. lii. pt. i. for the year 1761, London, 1762, p. 358. 
1766. Isis, Linneus, Systema Nature, ed. xii., Holmie, 1766, t. i. p. 1288. 
1816, Enerinus, Lamarck, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, t. ii., Paris, 1816, p. 432. 
1820. Pentacrinites, von Schlotheim, Die Petrefactenkunde, Gotha, 1820, p. 327. 
1821. Pentacrinus, Miller, A Natural History of the Crinoidea, Bristol, 1821, p. 45. 
1832. Pentacrinites, Goldfuss, Petrefacta Germaniae, Dusseldorf, 1832, t. i. p. 168. 
1832. Solanocrinites, Goldfuss, Ibid., p. 168. 
1834. Pentacrinus, de Blainville, Manuel d’Actinologie, Paris, 1834, p. 257. 
1834. Encrinus, de Blainville, [bid., p. 254. 
1835. Pentacrinus, Agassiz, Mém. de la Soc. d. Sci. Nat. de Neuchatel, t. i. p. 194. 
1835. Chladocrinus, Agassiz, [bid., p. 195. 
1836. Pentacrinus, Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy, London, 1836, vol. i. p. 432. 
1837. Isocrinus, von Meyer, Museum Senckenbergianum, Frankfurt, ii. p. 251. 
1843. Pentacrinus, Miiller, Abhandl. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, Jahrg. 1841, p. 177. 
1845. Pentacrinus, Austin, A Monograph on Recent and Fossil Crinoidea, Bristol, 1843-45, p. 110. 
1845. Pentacrinus, Desor, Bull. Soc. d. Sci. Nat. de Neuchatel, vol. 1. pp. 213, 214. 
1845. Isocrinus, Desor (non von Meyer), Ibid., p. 213. 
1845. Balanocrinus, Agassiz (non de Loriol), in Desor, Jbzd., p. 214. 
1847. Pentacrinus, VOrbigny, Cours élemént. de Paléontol. et de Géol. stratigr., t. ii, Fasc. 1, Paris, 1852, 
p. 149. 
1852. Tsocrinus, d’Orbigny, Ibid., p. 149. 
1 British Tertiary Echinoderms, p. 33. 2 Swiss Crinoids, pp. 111, 112. 
3 The above list contains, I believe, all the most important references to the recent Pentacrinus since the time of 
Guettard, together with notices of the chief paleontological works in which this type and its fossil representatives 
are mentioned. But it makes no pretence whatever of recording all the various names which have been bestowed at 
different times upon fragments of fossil Pentacrinid. A task of this kind is scarcely worth undertaking, as the result 
would be totally incommensurate with the labour involved. 
