382 Miscellaneous. 



absolutely unable to recognize in the specimen any trace of the 

 " proper wall," " canals," or " stolon passages " which are claimed 

 to occur in Eozoon, or any reasons for regarding the calcite bands as 

 the " intermediate skeleton " of a foraminifer. There are points in 

 Sir W. Dawson's figure which might pass as " stolon passages," but 

 they appear very diiferent in a photograph, and the specimen agrees 

 with the latter. 



The Author, however, gives reasons for concluding that the case 

 against the organic origin of the Tudor specimen does not rest on 

 negative evidence alone ; for though the rock is much contorted, the 

 twin lamelife and cleavage-planes of the calcite are not bent; and 

 the fact that the crystalline bands cut across the bedding-planes 

 further shows their secondary origin. 



The rock in which the specimen was found is not " Lower 

 Laurentian," and is included by Messrs. Selwyn and Vennor in the 

 Huronian. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



On Professor Jeffrey BelVs "■Notes on Nomenclature of British 

 Starfishes" with remarks on some Recent Crinoidea. By the 

 Eev. Canon A. M. Norman. 



The critical revision of names suggested by Prof. Jeffrey Bell 

 (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, for Dec. and Feb. last) seems intended for 

 friendly criticism, as he himself assures me it was ; and I therefore 

 send the following items for the consideration of himself and 

 others. 



These notes, moreover, are partly corrective of ray own use, as well 

 as of that of others. Unfortunately in the preparation of my list, 

 'Museum Normanianum, I. Echinodermata,' I made the mistake of 

 employing certain names as used by recent authors, instead of going 

 into the matter again and seeing whether there were just grounds 

 for changing nomenclature I had previously after matui'e considera- 

 tion adopted. 



Cribrella versus Henricia. 



When Sladen wrote "Genus Crihrella (Agassiz), Forbes," he 

 thereby intended, I take it, to express a truth, namely that Agassiz 

 first used the name, that Forbes more acciiratelj' defined the genus, 

 and that he employs it in Forbes's sense. 



Professor Bell says that Forbes in using Crihrella (or Crihella) 

 " perpetrated a robbery, which is now only (after half a century !) 

 revealed to the world, which has been taught to revere his name. 

 .... He thought perhaps that he was justified, when he had 

 placed the species in Nardo's genus Linclia (Mem. Wern. Soc. viii. 

 p. J 20) in 1839, and discovered his error and the fact that Crihrella 

 was a synonym for that name a little later." The imjtlication is 



