BihliograpJiical Notices. 99 



Before leaving the subject of the Crinoids I would again appeal 

 to Mr. "Miller to discontinue the use of the term "subradials" for 

 the upper series of plates in the base of dicyclic Crinoids. It has 

 been obsolete in Europe for a dozen years past, and has been gradu- 

 ally abandoned hy American authors, no one but Miller and Gurley 

 having used it since 1886. Miller's generic and specific diagnoses 

 arc not always as clear as they might be ; but he need not make 

 matters worse by using an antiquated and empirical terminology 

 which the student must translate into the current nomenclature of 

 other pakieontologists, as expounded in the text-books, before he 

 can properly realize the characters of any " new " genus or species. 



Besides the Crinoids, Miller and Gurley also describe a new star- 

 fish from the Kinderhook Group which they refer to Schcenaster, 

 M. & W., under the name S. legrandensis. They likewise relate 

 how Meek and Worthen " described an Ophiuroidea " {sic) from 

 the Keokuk Group under the provisional name oi Protaster'l grega- 

 rias, some examples of which in Mr. Gurlej^'s collection cannot be 

 referred to Eorbes's genus ; and it is therefore made the type of 

 Aganaster, Miller and Gurley, who think that they have found the 

 remains of a second species as well. Thej' also describe a new 

 species of Troostocrinus {T. nifiduJtis) from the St. Louis Group, but 

 omit all notice of its relations to the other species of the genus from 

 the same horizon, while they give no information as to whether the 

 posterior pair of spiracles are separate from the anal opening, as in 

 Metahlastus, or confiuent with it, as in the type of Troostocrinus. 

 The real generic position of this Blastoid has therefore yet to be 

 determined. The last of Miller and Gurley^'s new species is Archceo- 

 cidaris legrandensis, from the Kinderhook Group of Iowa, of which 

 the authors remark, " This species is founded upon the fragment of 

 a body, and our justification for naming and describing it is to be 

 found in the fact that it is the oldest Archceocidaris known in 

 America, and carries this genus back to the lowest Subcarboniferous 

 deposits, whereas heretofore it has not been known below the 

 Burlington Group." The authors' justification is to some extent 

 admissible ; but it may be well to remember that over twenty species 

 of this genus have already been described from the American Carbon- 

 iferous series, and tliey seem likely to give no little trouble to the 

 echinologist who attempts to revise them. 



I am sorry that I cannot speak more appreciatively of Mr. Miller's 

 palajontological work. The demands of the legal profession doubtless 

 leave him but little time that he can devote to the science, in the 

 promotion of which he exhibits such zeal and energy. But ho 

 might employ these valuable qualities to much better advantage 

 than in adding a number of unnecessary synonyms to an already 

 overburdened literature. Three at least, and probably four, of his 

 last six new genera of Crinoids would never have been proposed 

 had he taken the trouble to make himself properly acquainted with 

 the bibliography of his subject ; and I suspect that quite half of his 

 ninety new species will prove to be synonyms when they come to be 

 revised. 



