Morphology of the Blastoidea. 289 



he sees no good reason for separating the first division (type 

 P.florealis) from the second (type P. melo). In reply to this 

 I can only say that Meek and YVorthen thought differently * 

 and that the reasons which induced Mr. Etheridge and 

 myself to follow their lead and establish the genus Schizo- 

 hlastus appear to me to be as valid now as they were three 

 years ago. No detailed criticism of them has yet been 

 offered by Mr. Hambach or by any other writer, and it is 

 therefore not necessary for me to go into the subject again. 



Mr. Hambach proceeds to tell us f that " all described 

 Pentremites (except those which belong to the genus Codaster 

 or Codonites) can easily be distributed in either one or the 

 other of these three divisions ; it is therefore impracticable 

 to divide the genus Pentremites into four or five new genera 

 as has been proposed by Mr. Carpenter." In this last 

 sentence we have another erroneous statement of Mr. Ham- 

 bach's. I have not proposed to divide Pentremites into four 

 or five new genera. _ I retain this name for Pentremites 

 Godoni and allied species : while, on Hambach's own showino- 

 Granatocrinus dates back some years. D'Orbigny proposed 

 Pentremitide.a in 1849 ; Von Seebach pointed out the distinct- 

 ness of Orophocrinus in 1864; and Shumard suggested the 

 separation of r Froostocrinns in 1865. I am only responsible 

 for two new genera — Phcenoschisma and Schizoblastus. 



Mr. Hambach continues : — " For instance, the difference of 

 Troostocrinus clavatus, according to Carpenter, = Pentremites 

 clavatus HambachJ and P. piriformis Say, consists mainly 

 in the different length of the base and fork pieces, and there 

 is certainly a closer relationship between these two species 

 than between P. clavatus and Reinwardtii or lineatus" I 



* " Descriptions of new Pakeozoic Fossils from Illinois and Iowa " 

 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 1861, p. 142. 



f Trans. St. Louis Acad. vol. iv. p. 546. 



\ As Mr. Hambach commits himself to a generalization about " all 

 described Pentremites," it is not unreasonable to suppose that he must 

 be at least acquainted with their names. But he appears both to have 

 been, and to be still, altogether unaware that a Pentremites clavatus was 

 described by Sehultze so long ago as 1866, in his well-known " Mono- 

 graphie der Echinodermen des Eider Kalkes '' (Wiener Denkschriften 

 xxvi. Bd. p. 113, Taf. xiii. tig. 7). Mr. Etheridge and myself Lave re- 

 ferred this species to Pentremitidea ('Annals,' April 1882, p. 223) and 

 have also mentioned the later P. clavatus, Hambach, as one of the species 

 which will probably be comprised in Troostocrinus (ibid. p. 249). But 

 Mr. Hambach admits neither of these genera, referring them both'to his 

 tirst division of Pentremites, along with P. Godoni and P. sulcatus. He 

 must therefore find another name than P. clavatus for the species which 

 he described in 1881. I do not see the necessity of it myself ; but it is an 

 inevitable result of the views which Mr. Hambach holds respecting the 

 subdivision of the original genus Pentremites. 



