452 Miscellaneous. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



Echinocrinvs versus ArcJicnocidaris. 

 B}- F. A. Bather, British Museum (Xat. Hist.). 



Amokg many preliminarj' studies for a memoir entitled " Triassic 

 Echinoderms of Bakony " *, now passing through the press, I had 

 to make up my mind on this long-vexed question. My friend 

 Professor R. T. Jackson had to do the same for a forthcoming 

 memoir on Palaeozoic Echinoids, and on his asking my opinion I 

 sent him the MS. of the present note. Had he not urged its 

 publication, so as to clear the ground, I should have preferred 

 to let someone else play this ungrateful role of nomenclatural 

 chiffonier. 



The name Ecliinocnnus was proposed by Agassiz (1841, " Obs. 

 sur les progres recents de I'hist. nat. des Echinodermes," Monogr. 

 d'Echinodermes, ii, p. 15) for Cidaris Urii Fleming, and Cidarites 

 Kerei, Protei et pnscus of Miinster, and some unpublished species. 

 The genus was thought by him to be a crinoid precursor of 

 Echinoidea, possessing " la forme spheroidale des oursins avec des 

 ambulacres etroits et de longs piquans epineux comme certains 

 Cidaris," and " circonscrit dans les terrains de transition et dans les 

 terrains houiUers." On p. 20 Agassiz mentioned a new species of 

 EcMnocrinus sent to him by Austin. 



According to modern rules and customs it is clear that the name 

 Echinocriims, unless preoccupied, which has never been maintained t, 

 is perfectly valid, and that one of the four species mentioned by 

 name must be taken as genotype. 



T. & T. Austin (1842, Ann. Kat. Hist. x. p. Ill, Oct.) accepted 

 the name Echinocrinns, and mentioned under it E. pomum, E. spi- 

 nosus, E. anceps, and E. cidariformis'? The last three were their 

 own MS. species, while the first, ascribed to Agassiz, doubtless 

 referred to the specimen above mentioned as sent by Austin to 

 Agassiz, and was also still in MS. Consequently, except as showing 

 that the name was accepted, this paper has no bearing on the inter- 

 pretation of the genus. 



The species E. sp)ino3iis and E. anceps were described by the 

 Austins in March 1843 (Ann. Nat. Hist. xi. p. 207), but not in 

 such a way as to permit of their recognition, while they did not 

 state their horizon. The latter was compared with E. pomum, 

 which, however, remained undescribed. Here occurs the first 

 objection to the generic name : " It appears to us," they wrote, 

 "that the name of our genus Sycocrinites and that of the Echino- 

 crinus of Professor Agassiz require amendment, as their terminations 

 imply affinities which do not exist." The meaning of this is not 

 very clear, since by the title of their paper they still retained them 

 under Crinoidea, and since by the words " Column unknown " they 



* ' Resultate der wissenschaftl. Erforschung des Balatonsees,' i. Bd. 

 1 Th., Pal. Anh. 



t Echinoencrinus, H. v. Meyer, 1826, is unfortunately similar, but it is 

 far trora identical. 



