Bibliographical Notices. 99 



Before leaving the subject of tlio Crinoids I would again appeal 

 to ifr. Miller to discontinue the use of the term " suliradials " for 

 the upper series of plates in the base of dicyclic Crinoids. It has 

 been obsolete in Europe for a dozen years past, and has been gradu- 

 ally al)and()ned by American authors, no oiic but Miller and (iurley 

 having used it since 18S0. Miller's generic and specific diagnoses 

 are not always as clear as they might be ; but he need not make 

 matters worse by using an aiiti(|uated and empirical terminology 

 whicli the student must translate into the current nomenclature of 

 other palaeontologists, as e:^pouuded in the text-books, before he 

 can properly realize the characters of any " new " genus or species. 



Besides the Crinoids, ^liller and Gurley also describe a new star- 

 fish from the Kinderhook Group which they refer to Schrenaster, 

 M. & W., under the name S. lerfvandensis. They likewise relate 

 how Meek and Worthen " described an Ophiuroidea " {sic) from 

 the Keokuk Group under the pronsional name o? Protaster'? grega- 

 r/c.s", some examples of which in Mr. Gurley 's collection cannot be 

 referred to JForbes's genus ; and it is therefore made the type of 

 Aganasttr, Miller and Gurley, who think that they have found the 

 remains of a second species as well. They also describe a new 

 species of Troo.ttocriitus (T. 7iitiduh(s) from the 8t. Louis Group, but 

 omit all notice of its relations to the other species of the genus from 

 the same horizon, while they give no information as to whether the 

 posterior pair of spiracles are separate from the anal opening, as in 

 Metahlastas, or confluent with it, as in the type of Troostocrimis. 

 The real generic position of this Blastoid has therefore yet to be 

 determined. The last of Miller and Gurley's new species is ArcJiceo- 

 cidari^ lec/randensis, from the Kinderhook Group of Iowa, of which 

 the authors remark, " This species is founded upon the fragment of 

 a body, and our justification for naming and describing it is to be 

 found in the fact that it is the oldest Archceocidaris known in 

 America, and carries this genus back to the lowest Subcarboniferous 

 deposits, whereas heretofore it has not been known below the 

 Burlington Group." The authors' justification is to some extent 

 admissible ; but it may be well to remember that over twenty species 

 of this genus have already been described from the American Carbon- 

 iferous series, and they seem likely to give no little trouble to the 

 echiuologist who attempts to revise them. 



I am sorry that I cannot speak more appreciatively of Mr. Miller's 

 paloeontological work. The demands of the legal profession doubtless 

 leave him but little time that he can devote to the science, in the 

 promotion of which he exhibits such zeal and energy. But he 

 might employ these valuable qualities to much better advantage 

 than in adding a number of unnecessary synonyms to an already 

 overburdened literature. Three at least, and probably four, of his 

 last six new genera of Crinoids would never have been proposed 

 had he taken the trouble to make himself properly acquainted with 

 the bibliography of his subject : and I suspect that quite half of his 

 ninety new species will prove to be synonyms when they come to be 

 revised. 



7* 



