﻿248 
  Mr. 
  F. 
  A. 
  Bather 
  on 
  

  

  Redescription. 
  

  

  Tlie 
  Austin 
  Collection 
  of 
  Echinorlerms, 
  accompanied 
  by 
  a 
  

   list 
  in 
  the 
  handwriting 
  of 
  Fort-Major 
  Austin, 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  

   Public 
  Museum 
  of 
  Liverpool, 
  and 
  contains 
  a 
  fair 
  number 
  of 
  

   the 
  specimens 
  described 
  or 
  figured 
  by 
  the 
  Austins. 
  The 
  

   specimens 
  are 
  gummed 
  on 
  -vrooden 
  tablets, 
  and 
  provided 
  

   with 
  labels 
  copied 
  from 
  the 
  somewhat 
  unclear 
  MS, 
  list. 
  

   When, 
  thanks 
  to 
  the 
  facilities 
  afforded 
  by 
  the 
  Director, 
  

   Dr. 
  Clubb, 
  I 
  recently 
  made 
  a 
  careful 
  inspection 
  of 
  tl;e 
  

   collection, 
  I 
  found 
  only 
  two 
  tablets 
  purporting 
  to 
  bear 
  

   specimens 
  of 
  this 
  genus. 
  They 
  were 
  labelled 
  " 
  (369) 
  Lyco- 
  

   crinus 
  anapetalamenus 
  " 
  and 
  " 
  (370) 
  Lycocrinus 
  jacksoni,''^ 
  

   a 
  circumstance 
  which 
  possibly 
  explains 
  why 
  Sycocrmites 
  

   miapeptomeniis 
  had 
  been 
  lost 
  sight 
  of. 
  

  

  Taking 
  now 
  the 
  evidence 
  of 
  the 
  drawings 
  (reproduced 
  on 
  

   Plate 
  X., 
  with 
  Austin's 
  original 
  numbering 
  2-4 
  A), 
  of 
  the 
  

   J\1S. 
  list, 
  of 
  the 
  tablets, 
  and 
  of 
  the 
  specimens 
  on 
  tJie 
  tablets, 
  

   I 
  propose 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  the 
  three 
  species 
  in 
  order. 
  

  

  Sycoc7'inus 
  jacksoni. 
  

  

  Tablet 
  370 
  in 
  the 
  Austin 
  Collection 
  is 
  labelled 
  as 
  bearing 
  

   this 
  species, 
  which 
  should 
  be 
  represented 
  by 
  a 
  single 
  theca. 
  

   Put 
  the 
  sole 
  specimen 
  on 
  the 
  tablet 
  is 
  a 
  very 
  clear 
  example 
  

   of 
  the 
  blastoid 
  " 
  Astrocrinus 
  tetragonus 
  Austin/' 
  which, 
  

   without 
  much 
  doubt, 
  has 
  fallen 
  off 
  tablet 
  371, 
  to 
  which 
  it 
  

   ])roperly 
  belongs 
  and 
  where 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  gummed 
  s})ace 
  for 
  it, 
  

   and 
  has 
  been 
  stuck 
  by 
  mistake 
  on 
  tablet 
  370. 
  The 
  original 
  

   specimen 
  370 
  must 
  have 
  disappeared 
  before 
  that 
  took 
  place, 
  

   and 
  is 
  not 
  likely 
  ever 
  to 
  be 
  found. 
  

  

  The 
  MS. 
  list 
  says 
  that 
  the 
  original 
  specimen 
  came 
  from 
  

   the 
  Carboniferous 
  Limestone 
  of 
  Settle. 
  This 
  runs 
  counter 
  

   to 
  Von 
  Buch's 
  suggestion, 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  description, 
  that 
  the 
  

   specimen 
  was 
  a 
  Cryptocrinus. 
  Renewed 
  examination 
  of 
  the 
  

   figures 
  in 
  this 
  new' 
  light 
  is 
  required. 
  

  

  The 
  drawings 
  (PI. 
  X. 
  figs. 
  4—4 
  b) 
  represent 
  a 
  theca 
  com- 
  

   posed 
  of 
  three 
  circlets 
  of 
  plates. 
  The 
  proximal 
  circlet 
  

   consists 
  of 
  one 
  small 
  and 
  two 
  large 
  plates, 
  together 
  forming 
  

   a 
  jientagonal 
  base 
  (fig. 
  4 
  6), 
  The 
  second 
  circlet 
  consists 
  of 
  

   five 
  pentagonal 
  plates, 
  with 
  the 
  shield 
  shape 
  characteristic 
  of 
  

   ordinary 
  radials. 
  The 
  third, 
  or 
  uppermost 
  circlet 
  consists 
  

   of 
  five 
  triangular 
  plates, 
  not 
  alternating 
  with 
  the 
  radials 
  but 
  

   continuing 
  them 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  way 
  as 
  ordinary 
  brachials. 
  

   On 
  one 
  of 
  these 
  plates, 
  ajijjarently 
  a 
  little 
  l)clow 
  and 
  to 
  the 
  

   left 
  of 
  its 
  centre, 
  is 
  a 
  circular 
  excrescence, 
  which 
  in 
  one 
  

  

  