204 Mr. F. A. Bather on British Fossil Crinoids : 
to Scaphiocrinus (Rev. I. 114, Proc. 1879, p. 337). Miller’s 
fig. 28 probably represents a Scytalecrinus, but the anal area is 
not very clear ; at any rate it does not agree with the diagnosis 
or diagrams of Cyathocrinus. In his diagnosis of the genus 
Miller stated that the stem had irregular “ side arms” or 
cirri, and such were represented in his figures 26 and 27; but 
of these the Austins said (op. c7t. p. 61), they “are not the 
side arms of any species of Cyathocrinus, 26, being a small 
column, and 27, the column and side arms of a Potertocrinus.”’ 
No species agreeing in other respects with Miller’s diagnosis 
is known to possess cirri of this nature. 
The foregoing specimens were no doubt placed, as was the 
rest of J. S. Miller’s valuable collection, in the Bristol 
Museum *, where they were shown to L. Agassiz by the then 
curator, Mr. 8. Stutchbury t. But, to the disgrace of the 
inhabitants of that town, all these treasures have been 
gradually allowed to disappear from that, their natural 
resting-place. 
There was, however, another specimen figured by Miller 
(figs. 29 and 30), which was said by him (p. 87) to be ‘in 
the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.” The drawings agree 
perfectly with the generic diagnosis and diagram, and this 
specimen would be the best to take as the type of the species. 
Unfortunately, in the transfer from the Ashmolean to the new 
Museum at Oxford, this, with other important specimens, 
appears to have been mislaid, and all search for it has up till 
now been fruitless. It were to be wished that those in charge 
of some of our museums would remember that they are respon- 
sible, not merely to their immediate employers, not to the 
town, nor even to the nation, but to the whole world now and 
to come. 
J. Phillips, in his ‘Geology of Yorkshire’ (1836), did not 
rocognize U. planus. He figured, however, under the name 
C. distortus (vol. ii. p. 206, pl. i. fig. 84), a specimen that 
was obviously of the same species as Miller’s figs. 29 and 30. 
The Austins appear to have studied Miller’s type specimens 
before they were ‘conveyed’ from the Museum of the Bristol 
Insiitution, and they retained the species C. planus, figuring 
(op. cit. pl. vil. fig. 4c, d) a specimen which was in all 
probability the original of the cup in Miller’s fig. 1, as well 
as a specimen (pl. vil. fig. 4e) probably the same as that 
figured by Phillips for C. distortus, which species they con- 
* See ‘The West of England Journ. Sci. and Lit.,’ no. 1, pp. 4, 19, 98, 
and 252: Bristol, Jan. 1835, 
+t L. Agassiz, ‘Poissons Fossiles, 4° livr., feuilleton additionel, p. 52 
(1835). 
