208 Mr. F. A. Bather on British Fossil Crinoids : 
fuss + and was referred by him to Cyathocrinus. Since the 
diagnosis of that genus given by Goldfuss was simply a 
translation of Miller’s, it follows that C. geometricus was 
1egarded by its author as possessing but one plate in tlie anal 
area. Neither the figures of Goldfuss nor that given by J. 
Phillips in his ‘Palgozoic Fossils of Cornwall ‘Ke.,’ plobs 
fig. 41* (1841), show the anal plates. The Austins, in their 
eer: p. 61 (1845), likewise referred this species to 
Cyathocrinus, speaking as though there were one anal plate 
only, placed as in Cyathocrinus ; in fact the diagram of 
Cyathocrinus on p. 58 is said to be taken from C. geometricus. 
C. F. Reemer + appears to have found Miller’s description of 
Cyathocrinus planus quite unintelligible, and consequently 
proposed to take Miller’s second species, now known as Taao- 
erinus tuberculatus, as the type of Cyathocrinus, while he 
made C. geometricus the type of a new genus, Spherocrinus. 
From his diagnosis of Spherocrinus we learn that he supposed 
the genus to have only. three infrabasals, while he again 
mentions, though with some doubt, the single anal plate. 
Roemer’s view was adopted by G. and F, Sandberger in ‘ Die 
Versteinerungen des Rheinischen Schichtensystems 1 in Nassau,’ 
pp. 589, 390 (W iesbaden, 1850-1856). Joh. Miiller$ was the 
first to point out the correct structure of C, geometricus, 
describing a new variety of it, or possibly, as he regarded it, 
a closely allied species, under the name Poteriocrinus hemi- 
sphericus. He showed that there were five infrabasals, and 
that the anal area possessed a radianal, an anal w, and another 
small plate (7t) on the right of anal a, resting on the radi- 
anal. L. Schultze || placed all varieties of this species under 
the one head Potervocrinus geometricus, and gave figures 
(Taf. v. figs. 6d, 67) entirely confirming Miiller’s deserip- 
oe and figures of the anal area. It is odd that Messrs. 
Wachsmuth and Springer, who refer to both Miller and 
Schultze, should still have kept this species under Cyatho- 
cvinus in the first part of their Revision, saying (p. 83), “it 
has all the characters of Cyathocrinus, not only in the con- 
struction of the calyx, but also of the vault.” In 1886, 
however (Rey. Il]. 226; Proc. p. 150), they were inclined to 
+ ‘Petrefacta Germaniz,’ vol. i. part 3, p. 189, tab. lviii. figs. 5a, b 
(1831). 
{ “ Beitrige zur Kenntniss der fossilen Fauna des Devonischen Ge- 
birges am Rhein,” Verha ndl. d. naturhist. Ver. d. preuss. Rheinlande, 
sth Jahrg. pp. 863-369 : Bonn, 1851. 
S210) eber neue Echine dermen des Kifeler Kalkes,’ ” Abhandl. k. Ak, 
Wiss. Berlin, Jahre. 1856, p. 200, Taf. ii. figs. 4, 5, 6, 7 (1857). 
i Monographie der Echine dermen des Kifler Kalkes 3)” Denkschr, k. 
Ak, Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. Bd. xxvi. (1866) p. 51; Wien, 1867. 
