REPORT ON THE CRINOIDEA. 403 
led me to adopt Schliiter’s view, as de Loriol* had previously done. For I not unfre- 
quently met with calyces in which basals might appear externally at some of the angles, 
but not at others; while in other fossil types no basals were visible at all, In both cases, 
however, the basals were present as more or less prismatic rods extending outwards from 
the centre of the under surface of the radial pentagon somewhat as in the Pentacrinus 
decorus represented in Pl. XXXIV. fig. 8. But they were not always long enough to 
reach the edge of the radial pentagon and appear externally between it and the centro- 
dorsal; so that one side of a calyx would be that of an Antedon and the other that of a 
Solanocrinus. Under these circumstances it would seem that Schliiter was undoubtedly 
right in uniting Solanocrinus with Antedon. But in a Manual of Paleontology recently 
published by Hoernes,” Zittel’s classification is still adopted, and Solanoerinus is placed 
as a subgenus of Antedon, differing from it in the presence of basals on the exterior of 
the calyx; while it is also described as represented by a living species and not by fossil 
ones only. This apparently refers to the doubtful genus Comaster, Agassiz, which is 
only known from the description given of it by Goldfuss.* Whatever be the nature of 
Comaster, however, the supposed difference between Solanocrinus and Antedon cannot 
any longer be regarded as of generic value. 
NOTE C. 
(Page 68.) 
On THE Excentric Posrrion oF THE Mout IN Actinometra. 
The genus Actinometra comprises quite two-fifths, if not more, of all the species of 
living Crinoids. The character by which it is most readily distinguished at first sight is 
the excentric position of the mouth, as was pointed out in 18774 and again in 1879 ;° 
while its generic position is recognised by Claus in the last edition of his Grundziige der 
Zoologie with the character “Mund excentrisch” (PI. LV. figs. 1, 2; PEGA, fies? 778; 
Pl. LXI. fig. 2; see also fig. 3 on p. 92). 
In spite of these facts, however, Hoernes stated in his Paleontology (p. 131) that in 
recent Crinoids the mouth is always (stets) in the centre of the disk, which is very far from 
being the case, as explained above. This error was avoided by Zittel, whom Hoernes 
usually follows very closely ; though the generic position of Actinometra was not fully 
recognised by the former author, who placed it along with Solanoerinus and Promacho- 
crinus as a subgenus of Antedon. But all subsequent writers, Hoernes excepted, have 
recognised that Antedon and Actinometra are totally distinct generic types. 
1 Swiss Crinoids, p. 254. 2 Elemente der Palwontologie, p. 149. 
3 Petrefacta Germaniz, vol. i. p. 202 ; see also Journ. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.), vol. xiii. p. 454, 1877. 
4 Journ. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.), vol. xiii, p. 441, 1877. 
5 The Genus Actinometra, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.), ser. 2, vol. ii. p. 18. 
