145. CONTRIBUTION TO 



DOLATOCRINUS EXCAVATUS? W. &Sp. Rowley. 



Plate 42. Fig. 7. 



This fossil is referred with some hesitation to Wachsmuth <b Springer's 

 species. It probably had ten arms but this can not be certainly determined 

 from the condition of the specimen. The basal funnel is large and deep and 

 the radial ridges much stronger than in D. curriei- 



The plate ornamentation is closely like that of both D. excavatus and D. 

 Gurriei. On a side view, nothing below the third radial is seen, the plates 

 hidden, being involved in a concavity. The plate sutures are channeled. Each 

 primary interradial is probably ten sided. 



Horizon, locality and collection same as the last. 



MEGISTOCRINUS CORNIGER, Rowley. 



Plate 42. Figs. 8, 10, 11, 12. 



This little crinoid has the shape of M. coriiiger but apparently smaller 

 spines. The base is not so concave and the central dome spine seems to be en- 

 tirely wanting. 



The stem base is attached to the dorsal cup. The plate ornamentation can 

 not be determined. 



Figures 10, 11, 12 represent a smaller and more depressed specimen, but 

 apparently of the same species. The base is a little more concave but no sur- 

 face ornamentation can be discerned. 



Both specimens are from the Upper Devonian beds near Charlestown, Ind., 

 and in the collection of Mr. G. K. Greene, of New Albany, Ind. 



MEGISTOCRINUS HEMISPHERICUS? M. &G., Rowley. 



Plate 42. Fig. 9. 



With some doubt we refer this specimen to Miller & Gurley's species, as it 

 differs in some respects from that form, the dorsal cup being less abruptly ele- 

 vated and the height being less in proportion to the width. The arm bases 

 form quite strong lobes and there is an entire absence of spines on the ventral 

 surface. Our specimen has the normal number of arms (16) while M. hemis- 

 pher'irua has but fourteen. 



Horizon, locality and collection same as the last. 



