Miscellaneous. 453 



implied that both genera were at any rate Pclmatozoa. Unpublished 

 drawings by the Austins of some of their species of Sycocriniteg 

 have convinced rae that those species were Crinoids after all. The 

 criticism, therefore, was not at that time well founded. 



In 184-1 the name Echinocrimts was still maintained by no less a 

 person than M'Coy (' Synops. Carb. Foss. Ireland'*, p. 173), who 

 then gave a systematic diagnosis, recognizing the genus as an 

 Echinoid, and distinguishing it from PaUicliinus on the one hand 

 and Cidaris on the other. Under this name he proceeded to 

 describe E. Munstenanusl (Kon.), E. i/lahrispina (Phill.), E. tri- 

 serialis sp. n., E. Urii (Flem., incl. Cidaris henhurhiensis I'ortlock), 

 and E. vetustus (Phill.). Now, if by chance any objection were 

 raised to Echinocrimis Agassiz, on the ground of insufficient or 

 misleading description, and if the Austins' use of the name were 

 ignored on similar grounds, the objector would still be compelled to 

 accept the name as here confirmed by ^rCoy ; and since all the 

 species described by M'Coy were based on radioles only, with the 

 exception of E. Uril, that species would naturally be selected as 

 genotype, just as it would in the case of Agassiz' name t. 8o far 

 the situation is unchanged. M'Coy, however, took the unfortunate 

 step of mentioning that he " had long J ago distinguished this 

 species in " his " M>SS. under the name of Arclueocidaris." Ob- 

 viously this casual remark could not give any sanction to the name 

 Arcliaocidaris, nor was it intended to do so. On the contrary, it 

 is a question whether this mention did not put the name out of 

 court at once and for ever as a mere homonym of Echinocrimis §. 



Once these fossils were clearly understood to be Echinoids and 

 unrelated to Crinoids the obvious appropriateness of M'Coy's MS. 

 name led to its adoption by some authors. Thus, in 1845, Murchi- 

 son, Verneuil, and Keyserling (' Geol. Kussia,' ii. pp. xiv & 39G), in 

 assigning Cidaris rossicus liuch, to the newly established genus, 

 asserted their preference for the name Archceocidaris. Jfowhere in 

 the volume, however, is this species called anything but Cidaris (or 

 Cidarites) rossiczis. It would, therefore, scarcely be possible to 

 regard the name Archceocidaris as given any standing by those 

 authors ; nor, if occasion arose, could it be restricted on these 

 grounds to any genus that might be established with C. rossicus as 



* I am aware that, strictly speaking, this work was first published in 

 1802 by Messrs. "Williams and Norgate ; but many copies were privately 

 distributed by Sir Richard GrilHth towards the close of 1844 and 

 subsequently. Desor, however, had not yet seen it in 1857. 



t It" anyone were to insist on the first species mentioned being taken 

 as the fj:''»otype, he Avould select K Urii if he accepted Agassiz, but 

 £. (ilahrispina if he accepted only M'Coy. E. Munsterianus being 

 marked with a ? could not be selected. 



X None the less in 1842 he called this species merely Cidaris Vrii. 

 See II. ( .1.] Griflith, ' Notice respecting the Fossils of the Mountain Lime- 

 stone of Ireland kc.,' p. 12 : printed Dublin, 1842. 



§ in the legend to the lithographed plates the name Archctocidaris, 

 which liad been printed, was erased, and the name Echinocrinus inserted 

 by hand. 



