uuu. -1 ^'i-^^^' •/f'/v'.i^'N/^' cRi\nin—si'h'i\(iER. 133 



However, Briickner did not einplo}^ binopiinl names consistently, 

 manj^ of those relating to crinoidal remains bcin^ polynomial, as, for 

 instance, Entrochitcs fungita' adhnrens, ei<2;lith Stueck, page 888; 

 Encrini minons pulcrc raniificatiiii/, etc.: and his incidental use of 

 Kntrochites ramosus may probably be disregarded for that i-eason. 



The case of Encriniis is much more serious. Bather credits it to 

 Schulze (1760), who wrote it "'•EncvimiTn^'' probably as the accusa- 

 tive of Kricrw}(s. Schulze's work was mainly a ('om])ilation from 

 former authors, as Linck, Lhuyd, Seba, and Ellis, and he uses their 

 names in the same manner as they did, with but small pretense to 

 binomial application. He did not propose Envnnum to rej^resent a 

 genus, but only mentioned by way of recital the fact that certain 

 petrifactions resembling a lily have been called the lily stone, 

 Enci'iiiKin. This is what he says: "Man findet eine gewisse Ver- 

 steinerung, die, in Ansehung ihrer (lestalt, einige (xleichheit mit einer 

 Lilie zu haben scheinet ; daher man dieselbe anfjinglich fiir die Ver- 

 steincrung dieser Blume gehalten, imd sie den Lih'ensfein, Encrinurn, 

 genennet hat." " 



On Plate 4 is a figure of a complete crown of the fossil to which 

 he refers, and in the long description which follows he mentions it 

 four times by the name '' Lilienstein,'"' but never again as Encfinum. 

 It seems to me there would be as much reason for recognizing as valid 

 i\^m.eH{h.(^ Decacrvimos ( = Antedon) and TriHca'dccarnimos (probably 

 ^ComatiiJa) which he transliterates from Linck, because it was the 

 first post-I^inna'an use of them, as Encrinum^ which he recites as an 

 equivalent of the name he actually uses in description — Eilienstein. 

 Yet nobody recognizes these names, the ground of their rejection be- 

 ing, I suppose, that they are not binomial, which Enrrinnm certainl}'^ 

 is not. I regret to find myself led to this impression by an inspection 

 of Schulze's work, because there are serious troubles aliead for the 

 name " EvcTinus,^' from which we Avould be saved but for its df)ubtful 

 standing there. 



The earliest use of the name '" Enerinus " in a binomial sense that I 

 know of Avas by Andreae in his " Briefe aus der Schweiz," published 

 in the Hannoverisches Magazin in 1763-64, and afterwards in book 

 form in 1776. On page 4 of this work he formally proposes the name 

 EficTivv.s (oralloides for certain fossils which appear to him to be a 

 species of Enerinus or Lilienstein not before recognized, and which 

 had been figured on Table 8 of the eighth Stueck of Briickner's wor-k 

 above mentioned. Lie also refers to figures of similar specimens given 

 by Rosinus'^ on Table 10, A, B, (\ D, E. 



These fossils are now supposed to be the terminal stem branches or 

 roots of J/iJlenrTini/s, and one of them — Briickner''s fig. h — -has been 



<^ Betrachtung der Versteinerten See-Sterne iind ihre Tbeile. p. 21. 

 ^ Testa men de Lithozois, 1718. 



