British Fossil Crinoids. 249 



figure (fig. 4) is drawn as pierced by a small pore, considered 

 by Austin as an anal pore, but much smaller in proportion 

 than the usual anal channel of a pelmatozoon. Although 

 no statement is made and no representation of the actual 

 size is given, still it seems probable that these figures agree 

 ■with those of the other species in being enlarged some three 

 or four diameters. 



Comparison of the figures with those of the Visean species 

 Layeniocrinus seviinuhim, De Koninck andLehon (1884, 'Re- 

 chcrches s. 1. Criii.,' j). 187, pi. vii. ft". 1 a, b, c), Avill confirm 

 my previous reference of the drawings of this species to 

 Lugetiiocrimis. If, however, that be correct, then the sup- 

 posed anus is probably a parasitic boring or some adherent 

 foreign body. 



Laf/eniocj'inus is, as I have suggested (1900, * Treatise/ 

 p. 152), probably the young of Symbalhocrinus. The five 

 triangular plates are the first stages of the arms, and sub- 

 sequent brachials would appear at their distal ends. This 

 is borne out by Austin's fig. 4 a, which shows a slight 

 excavation at the apices, with apparently a minnfe pore in 

 each. These may be interpreted as the facets for the second 

 brachials, with the opening of the ventral groove. 



Sycocrinus clausus. 



This is not represented in the Austin Collection, so that 

 the locality and horizon are still a little uncertain {cide 

 supra), and our information is confined to the published 

 definition already analysed and the MS. drawings reproduced 

 in PI. X. figs. '6-6 e. 



The figures are clear in all respects except the orientation 

 of the small infraba^al, a very important point. Thc}'^ are 

 consistent with its po.^ition either in the r. post, radius, as 

 in Flexibilia, or in the anterior radius, as in Dicyclica 

 Inadunata. 



The five summit-plates, with their tri-radiate central 

 suture (Hg. '6d), are of the type usually termed ''oials,'"" 

 and there are no traces of any arm-facets on the radiais. 

 It Mill, however, be noted that the specimen itself was very 

 small, and the facets might easily have escaped observation. 



In tiie absence of the actual specimen, I do not feel inclined 

 to speculate as to the precise position of this form. It may, 

 not improbably, have been a Gasterocoraid allied to Hypo- 

 crinus schncideri and " Lecythiucrinus " adanisi, if not 

 actually congeneric with one or other of them ; or it may 

 couceivaldy have been, as Austin su[)posed, congeneric with 



