VILL. Cyathocrinus. 207 
‘Siluria’ (edit. 3, 1859). The names Cyathocrinus gonto- 
dactylus, @. ar. thriticus, and C. capillaris, of ‘The Silurian 
System’? and ‘Siluria,’ have had a longer existence ; indeed 
it was not till 1878, when Angelin founded Gissoert’ inus, that 
there was any oenus for the reception of those species. They 
however, together with various species to which J. W. Salter 
gave the Catalogue names of C. scoparius, C. squamiferus, 
C.sp. 1, and (. sp. 5, all appear to differ from Cyathocrinus 1 in 
the possession of three infrabasals instead of five, and must 
therefore be referred to Gissocrinus. 
Wachsmuth and Springer (Rev. [. 83, Proc. 1879, p. 306) 
said, “ Palewocrinus Billings is not distinct from Cyathocrinus. 
The construction of thecalyxisidentical.” E. Billings founded 
FPaleocrinus in ‘Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic 
Remains,’ decade iv. (1859), on p. 24, the type species being 
P. striatus (p. 25) ; he also referred to the genus P. angulatus 
(p25), B- rhombifer us (p. 45), and P. pulchellus (p. 46). 
Wachsmuth and Springer (Rev. III. 225; Proc. 1886, p. 149), 
alter examining the type specimens, entirely changed their 
views with regard to Paleocrinus. They said, ‘The co 
men of P. striatus, upon which the genus was proposed, i 
very imperfect, and may be a Carabocrinus, Dendrocrinus, or 
anew genus.” P. angulatus was referred by them, without 
any doubt, to Dendrocrinus. ‘Through the kindness of Dr. 
Ja\e Savon Op Selwyn and Mr. J. F. Whiteaves, the type speci- 
mens of Billings’s four species, which are the only specimens 
known, are now before me. As regards Palwocrinus striatus, 
there is no doubt that it is not a Cyathocrinus ; but a very 
careful examination has convinced me that neither is it a 
Carabocrinus ov a Dendrocrinus. Ishould not, however, like 
to say whether it can really be regarded as an independent 
genus. P. angulatus also is no Cyathocrinus ; but | quite fail 
to see why it should be referred to Dendrocrinus: the radi- 
anal is small, apparently four-sided, and occupies a position 
more like that in Botryocrinus than that in any other Inadu- 
nate genus. The specimens of 2. rhombiferus and P. pul- 
chellus do not show the anal area; for the present therefore 
the reticence of Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer concerning 
them is the best example to follow. 
Among the genera that have been confused with Cyatho- 
crinus there only remains one worthy of discussion, namely 
the genus Spherocrinus; and the history of this is somewhat 
peculiar. The only species of the genus is S. geometricus, a 
fairly well-known form from the “Devonian rocks of both 
Germany and England. ‘The species was founded by Gold- 
15* 
