454 Miscellaneous. 



genotype. Admittedly the name remains a pure homonym of 

 Echinocrimis. 



That the view just expressed was the one at that time adopted by a 

 manof sane judgment is proved byBronn's "Index Palseontologicus" 

 (' Nomenclator,' p. 443; 1848), where EcJdnocrinus is definitely 

 accepted with Archceocidaris as a synonym. To tliis genus Bronn 

 refers all the species hitherto mentioned, except MS, names and 

 except E. triserialis M'Coy, while he adds Cidaris deucalionis 

 Eichw. as a possible synonym of E. rossicus. 



In November 1846, however, Desor, in Agassiz & Desor (" Cat, 

 raisonnee des Ech.," Ann. Sci. Nat. (3) vi. p, 340) founded the 

 genus Palceocidaris for the Cidaris Nerei, Protei, and prisca of 

 Miinster, previously placed by Agassiz in Echinocrinus. That the 

 intention was simply to supplant the name Echinocrinus by one 

 more appropriate to the echinoid nature of the fossils, appears 

 from a note in Desor's ' Synopsis ' (p, 154), as well as from the 

 omission of Echinoainus from the ' Catalogue,' Since, however, no 

 such statement was made at the time, it might be possible to assign 

 to Echinocrinus the genotype Cidaris Urii, and to Palceocidaris the 

 genotype Cidaris Nerei, and ultimately, should subdivision of genera 

 proceed on these lines, to use both names, Down to this present, 

 however, no writer has doubted that C. Nerei and C. Urii are con- 

 generic, and Palceocidaris must therefore be regarded as either a 

 homonym or a synonym of Echinocrinus. 



The name Palceocidaris was no doubt proposed in ignorance of 

 M'Coy's name Archceocidaris, and M'Coy (1849, Ann, Nat, Hist. 

 (2) iii, p, 252) rightly pointed out that, if Echinocrinus were to 

 give place on any grounds to a later name, then Archceocidaris was 

 prior to Palceocidaris; and this view was accepted by Desor (1857, 

 ' Synopsis,'* p. 154). M'Coy's reasons for reversing his own previous 

 action were thus expressed : — (1) " Agassiz neither indicated the 

 affinities nor gave any descriptive notice of the genus Echinocrinus, 

 while I have done both for my ArcJiceocidaris." (2) " Several of 

 the continental geologists have not followed my example in rejecting 

 my own name, but prefer Archceocidaris." (3) Agassiz and Desor, 

 as above mentioned, have given up Agassiz' own name. Of these 

 reasons the only one that could have any validity is the first ; but 

 tlie statement is not entirely correct, since Agassiz did indicate 

 what, in his oinnion, were the affinities of Echinocrinus, and he did 

 give a descriptive notice t^vo lines long. The incorrectness of his 

 opinion and the insufficiency of his notice were fully compensated 

 for by his mention of four well-known species. No contemporary 

 worker failed to understand precisely what Agassiz meant by 

 Echinocrinus. That the name accords ill with present knowledge 

 may be admitted, but it is no more misleading than M'Coy's own 

 name Codaster, proposed in the very same paper for a fossil 

 " obviously allied to Pentremites," or than Agelacrinus for an Edrio- 

 asteroid, or Phrissocystis for an Echinoid. As for the "several 

 continental geologists " of M'Coy's paragraph (2), I have been 

 unable to discover them ; but it may be added that d'Orbigny 



