40 Dr. F. A. Batlier on some 



into the history of Encrinus, I liave made no serious attempt 

 to deal with Antedon and Actinometra. Had I proceeded to 

 the task of subdividing those genera — a task wliich I fore- 

 shadowed in the * Annals' in 1891, but which has now been 

 accomplished by Mr. Clark — then I should have attempted 

 to revise the nomenclature. So far as possible I leave names 

 .'done until the need for publishing new facts involves more 

 precise definition or discrimination. 



Another reason is that in the case of Encrinus there is no 

 |)Ossible room for doubt as to Schulze's meaning, because he 

 gives excellent figures of the fossil usually known as En- 

 crinus liliiformis. In the case of the other names few would 

 be bold enough to say definitely to which species each of 

 them refers. 



But perhaps the truest reason is that I have long been 

 aware of the facts recounted in Mr. Clark's paper and of 

 others given in the more complete history just published by 

 ^[r. F. Springer (1909), and 1 saw that terrible difficulties 

 would arise if Sciiulze's Encrinus were not accepted. Over- 

 whelmed by the thought, I clutciied at the first obvious straw, 

 letting the rest of the bundle drift whither it would. 



Of course I am prepared to accept the contention of those 

 who have recently examined the work of Schulze (viz. A. H. 

 Clark, 1908, " The Nomenclature of the Recent Crinoids," 

 Proc. U.S. National Mus. xxxiv. 435-542 ; W. K. Fisher, 



1908, "Necessary Changes in the Nomenclature of Starfishes," 

 Smithson. Miscell. Coll. Quart. lii. 87-93; F. Springer, 



1909, op. cit.; and others), and to admit that his names are 

 not always binomial. Some are, but others are not. Binomial 

 nomenclature was in the air, and to writers after 1758 I have 

 generally given the benefit of the doubt. I did not pretend 

 that Schulze used Encrinus with any trivial name attached, 

 but 1 took the generic name alone, and as there was never 

 any doubt to what it referred, it still seems to me as well 

 established as, say, Isocrinus Agassiz, 1836, or Metacrinus 

 Carpenter, 1882, both of them introduced in a similar manner 

 {i. e. the names quoted from others), but without any 

 described or figured species by which their far less complete 

 or even less correct diagnoses could be interpreted. Except 

 on the purely pedantic and arbitrary criterion of a consistent 

 use of binomial nomenclature, Encrinus Schulze certainly has 

 the advantage. 



But, after all, nothing will ultimately be gained by blinking 

 facts or seeking to escape from rules. Suppose we give up 

 Schulze and face the consequences, of which Mr. Clark only 

 shows us a few, but which, as Mr. Springer points out, are 



