VIII. Cyathocrinus. 203 



diagnosis of the genus (p. 85) is as follows : — " A Orinoidal 

 animal, with a round or pentagonal column formed of nume- 

 rous joints, having side arms proceeding irregularly from it. 

 On the summit adheres a saucer-shaped pelvis of five pieces, 

 on which are placed in successive series, live costal ])lates, five 

 scaj)ula3, and an intervening plate. From each scapula 

 proceeds one arm having two hands." The generic diagram 

 facing p. 85 shows five pentagonal infrabasals, five basals, of 

 which lour are hexagonal (or pentagonal according to the 

 angles formed by the upper sides of the infrabasals) and the 

 fifth heptagonal (or hexagonal), five radials with a deep notch 

 and an articular facet about one third the width of the plate, 

 and a hexagonal anal x in line with the radials. The figures 

 of C. jyianus — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 29, 30 — show that this 

 diagram was taken from that species, and bear out the 

 diagnosis so far as the cup is concerned. Fig. 1, however, 

 shows dichotomous pinnulate arms, and we know of no genus 

 with arms of this character that has a dorsal cup like that 

 shown in the diagram. The Austins' explanation of this was 

 a probable one. They said (Monogr. E-ec. & Foss. Crinoidea, 

 p. 61), " Miller's principal figure of this species cannot be 

 depended on, as he appears to have taken the rays of the 

 Taxocrinus longidactijlus and placed them on the body of the 

 C. ylanus^ On this Waciismuth and Springer remarked 

 (Revision, I. 81, footnote 2), " In supposing these to be the 

 arms of Taxocrinus, Austin is certainly mistaken." Austin, 

 however, applied tlie name Taxocrinus longidactylus to a 

 specimen from the Carboniferous Limestone, near Walton 

 Castle in Clevedon Bay, of which a figure had been published 

 by George Cumberland *. This very figure was referred by 

 Miller (p. 86) to C. planus^ and it is quite likely that the 

 arms of his own fig. 1 were suggested by it. As a matter of 

 fact there can be little doubt that Cumberland's figure repre- 

 sents a Scap/nocrinus with two primibrachs, although the 

 pinnules are merely indicated in his drawing by rough 

 shading. The same specimen was figured by Austin, pi. xi. 

 tig. 3 a, under the name Poteriocrinus longidactylus (p. 88), 

 thus showing that the name Taxocrinus was inserted by 

 mistake on p. 61. Mr. W. P. Sladen, in his revision of the 

 "Genus Poteriocrinus and allied forms " fj left this species out 

 in the cold ; but Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer referred it 



* " Description of some new Fossil Encriui and Pentacrini, lately dis- 

 covered in the neighbourhood of Bristol," Trans. Geol. Soe. 1st ser. vol. v. 

 part 1, pp. 87-94, with pis. ii.-v. : London, 1819. See pi. iii. fig. 1. 



t Proc. West Biding Yorksh. Geol. and Polvt. Soc. vol. vi. (n. s., 

 vol. i.) part iv. pp. 242-2o3, pi. x. (1877), 1878. 



