VIII. Cyathocrinus. 207 



*8iliiri;i' (('(lit. 3, 1859). The names Gjathocrinus gonio- 

 (hicli/hifi, C. artliriticus^ and C. aipilldris^ of ' The Silurian 

 System ' and ' Siliuia,' have had a longer existence ; indeed 

 it was not till 1878, when Angelin founded Gissocrinus, that 

 there was any genus for the reception of those species. They, 

 however, together with various species to which J. W. Salter 

 gave the Catalogue names of 6'. scopariwi, C. squamiferuSj 

 C. sp. 1, and (7. sp. 5, all appear to differ from Gijathocrinas m 

 the possession of three infrabasals instead of five, and must 

 therefore be referred to Gissocrinus. 



Wachsmuth and Springer (Rev. I. 83, Proc. 1870, p. 306) 

 said, " Pida'ocrinus Billings is not distinct from Cyathocrinus . 

 The construction of thecalyx is identical." E. Billings founded 

 Paloiocrinus in 'Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic 

 Remains,' decade iv. (1859), on p. 24, the type species being 

 P. striatus (p. 25) ; he also referred to the genus P. anyalatas 

 (p. 45), P. rhombiferus (p. 45), and P. pulchellus (p. 46). 

 AVaehsmuth and Springer (Rev. III. 225; Proc. 1886, p. 149), 

 alter examining the type specimens, entirely changed their 

 views with regard to Paheocrinus. They said, " The speci- 

 men of P. striatus, upon which the genus was proposed, is 

 very imperfect, and maybe a Carabocrinus, Dendrocrinus, or 

 a new genus." P. angulatus was referred by tiiem, without 

 any doubt, to Dendrocrinus. Through the kindness of Dr. 

 A. R. C. Selwyn and Mr. J. F. Whiteaves, the type speci- 

 mens of Billings's four species, which are the only specimens 

 known, are now before me. As regards Palceocrinus striatus^ 

 there is no doubt that it is not a Cyathocrinus ; but a very 

 careful examination has convinced me that neither is it a 

 Carabocrinus or a Dendrocrinus. I should not, however, like 

 to say Avhether it can really be regarded as an independent 

 genus. P. angidatus also is no Cyathocrinus ] but 1 quite fail 

 to see why it should be referred to Dendrocrinus : the radi- 

 anal is small, apparently four-sided, and occupies a position 

 more like that in Botryocrinus than that in any other Inadu- 

 nate genus. The specimens of P. rhombiferus and P. pul- 

 chellus do not show the anal area ; for the present therefore 

 the reticence of Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer concerning 

 them is the best example to follow. 



Among the genera that have been confused with Cyatho- 

 crinus there only remains one worthy of discussion, namely 

 the genus Sphcerocrinus ; and the history of this is somewhat 

 ]jeeuliar. The only species of the genus is S. geometricus, a 

 fairly well-known form from the Devonian rocks of both 

 Germany and England. The species was founded by Gold- 



15* 



