Dr. F. A. Bather on Protoechinus, Austin. 41 



Liverpool Museum. It is the only specimen now known, 

 and I am greatly indebted to Dr. J. A. Clubb for allowing 

 me to borrow it for detailed study. 



I have little doubt but that the Echinocrinus anceps of 

 T. & T. Austin (nom. nud., Oct. 1842, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, 

 x. p. Ill, and brief description, Mar. 1843, Ann. & Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. xi. p. 207) refers to the same specimen, although Dr. 

 11. T. Jackson, in his admirable " Phylogeny of the Echini " 

 (Jan. 1912, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist, vii.*) twice men- 

 tions it as a distinct species (pp. 449, 454). The Austins' 

 description being in the form of a comparison with the 

 undescribed E. pomum is a case of ignotum per ignotius, but 

 the specimen is said to be " a fragment showing the internal 

 structure of the ambulacra and a few of the adjoining plates," 

 and this fully agrees with our holotype. Moreover, no other 

 specimen agreeing with this statement is in the Austin col- 

 lection or represented in the Austins' unpublished drawings. 

 It Avill be remembered that the Austins originally regarded 

 Echinocrinus ( = Archaeocidaris) as a possible Crinoid, partly 

 no doubt because some of their Carboniferous cchinoid spe- 

 cimens had crinoid stems accidentally lying just over their 

 oral or apical poles. Consequently Protoechinus or Echino- 

 crinus anceps appears with the other Echinocrini from Hook 

 Point on the sketch for a plate of the unfinished Crinoid 

 Monograph. 



The essential clauses in Austin's description (1860) are : 

 " Ambulacral areas wide ; the two rows of pores in double 

 pairs near the margin, with alternate additional perforated 

 plates near the widest spread of the ambulacra ; where these 

 additional plates intervene the pores become quadruple; 

 interambulacral areas wide.'' The word " quadruple " can 

 only mean that where there are four columns of ambulacrals 

 there are four double pores in a transverse row. Neither 

 Loven (1874), nor Zittel (1879), nor Pomel (1887) seem to 

 have understood this, and they ascribed to the genus only 

 three columns of ambulacrals. But if the phrase receive 

 the preceding interpretation, which agrees with that of R. T. 

 Jackson (1912), then the description is correct so far as 

 it goes. The same cannot be said for Austin's figure. 

 Neither takes us very far, and though Duncan (1889) 

 ventured to refer the species to Palaeechinus, and Lambert & 

 Thiery (1910, p. 120) to Melonechinus, most writers have 

 agreed that " with present knowledge .... this interesting 



* In this work the various references to other authors are given iu 

 detail, which is therefore uot repeated here. 



