^/i sonic ci'ininon ' i iniui Siimcs. 37 



IV. — Some common Crinoid y<nnc<t, and the Fixation of 

 Nomenclature. liy F. A. Bathkr, M.A., D.Sc, F.K.S. 



In Ills })uj)cr "The Gemi'* Enerinus" (Ann. & Afa^j. Nat. 

 Hist. (8) iii. pp. 308-310, Muicli lUOU) Mr. Austin llol.art 

 C'laik opens with such pointed reference to my previous 

 Hlteinpts nt fixing; the noincnchitme of tho crinoid genersi 

 inviilved that t^ih-nce on tny part nii^dit set-ni discourteous, or 

 ilse to iniplv that I ncct-ptftl nil Mr. (yh'irk'.s staternentH 

 witliout ilernur. JSiiice Mr. F. Sprinj^cr lias also taken U|) 

 the questioti in an adniiral)Ie paper (" A now American 

 Jarassic Crinoid," Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. x.K.wi. pp. 170-11)0, 

 pi. iv., 3rd March, ll)0'.>), I am at last persuaded to puldish 

 the fcdlowin^ comments. 



^Ir. C'lark makes the criticism that the name Isocrinus is 

 not, as I saitl (1M)8), due to H. v. Meyer, but to L. Agassiz. 

 Ha writes (ISM)1>, March, p. 30S) : — ^^ Isucriniis was first 

 uroposcd in 183(j (L. Agassiz, Mem. de Soc. de Sci. Nat. de. 

 Neuchiitel, i. p. 195, ty\)ii hucrinites penduluSjde. (fie) Meyer, 

 1835, nomen nudum, = /.sc>cr/««s pendulas, von Meyer." I 

 do not know whence Mr. Clark ol)taim'd either the spelling 

 " Isocriintes^^ or the date " 1835." In the British ^luseum 

 copy of the memoir cited the words are " J. penduhis H. de M. 

 (encore in«^dit.).'' Therefore, until v. Meyer (1837) published 

 his description of /. pendu/u.t, Inocrinus had no genotype, 

 while its diagnosis was inadequate and incorrect: " Tr^s- 

 voisin des Pentacrines, dont il a la tige avec ses rayons 

 simples. Les premiers articles des rayons du disque ne 

 font pas saillie coinme dans le genre Pentacrinun ; en 

 revanche, la partie superieure de la tige est plus developpde." 

 But, apart from all this, Agassiz definitely assigned the 

 name Jsocrinus to ** H. de M'^yer," and was no doubt 

 attempting to condense manuscript information 8U[)plied 

 by that author. Had it not been for von Meyer's own 

 paper (1837) the name Isocrinus would never have come up 

 for discussion. How the generic name may be wiiiten and 

 quoted by others is a matter of small importance. But the 

 tort-going are the facts of the case. 



Mr. Clark seems to bint at further ignorance on my part 

 in reference to the names li'tlanocrinus anil Metacrinus. 



He says *^ liahinocrinus is not available for any genus of 

 Pentacrinitidie." It is admitted on p. 247 of my paper 

 (1898) that '* De Loriol has perhaps strained a point" ; " but," 

 1 add, " nothing would be gained by contesting his action." 

 The facts arc these: — The name Ihilanocrinus occurs fust in 



