FOSSILS OF THE BURLINGTON GROUP. 443 



the name Calceocrinus, in the Second Volume of the Palaeontology of 

 N. Y. The name Calceocrinus was proposed by him for some subtrigonal 

 pieces of a Crinoid. Avhich, judging from his figures and description, 

 certainly resemble very closely the basal piece of the subsequently pro- 

 posed genus Chcirocrinus so closely indeed, that we are much inclined 

 to adopt Dr. SHVMARD'S suggestion that they may belong to the same 

 type. Still it seems very improbable that Prof. HALL, with the original 

 typical specimens of his Calceocrinus (of which he says many specimens, 

 all agreeing in form, have been found) at hand for comparison, should 

 have been less liable to mftlerstand their true relations to his sub- 

 sequently described type than others, with only his figures and descrip- 

 tion of Calceocrinus accessible for comparison, and consequently pro- 

 ceeded to iv-describe the same genus under another name, that he had 

 previously called Calceocrinus. 



The synonymy is also unfortunately still farther complicated, by the 

 fact that Prof. HALL happened to select for one of the above mentioned 

 genera, proposed by him, the name Cheirocrinus. which had been used 

 by EICHWALD. in 1856, for a genus of Cystidians. EICHWALD'S pro- 

 posed genus seems to be nearly related, as he has stated, to Echino- 

 cncrinites, though it is very probably distinct. If so, then the name 

 Cheirocrinus would have to stand for his type, and could not be re- 

 tained for that described by Prof. HALL, even if distinct from his Cal- 

 ceocrinuK. In that case, to avoid confusion, the form here under coil 

 sideration might be called Eucheirocrinus. 



Until these questions of synonymy can be cleared up, however, we 

 prefer to describe our species, provisionally, under the name Calceocrinus; 

 although, if the type of that genus is distinct from Cheirocrinus. and 

 the latter name can stand, they would have to be ranged under it, as 

 they are clearly congeneric with the types for which it was proposed. 



It is evident that this remarkable genus differs so widely from all the 

 other known types, that it must be regarded as belonging to an entirely 

 distinct and unnamed family, which might be called Calceocrinidce, as 

 it is almost a certainty that Calceocrinus, even if generically distinct 

 from the forms here under consideration, would at least belong to the 

 same family, and if they are generically identical, Calceocrinus, being the 

 older name, would have to stand for the typical genus. 



