NO. 1846. ON CERTAIN ELEUTHEROZOIC PELMATOZOA—KIRK. 55 



The question as to the relationship of Scypliocrinus to the curious 

 bodies described as Camarocrinus by Hall and Loholithus by Bar- 

 rande has never satisfactorily been decided. The latest author 

 (Schu chert, 1904) to deal with the subject leaves the matter open for 

 further evidence. He, however, inclines to the behef that "Camaro- 

 crinus" is the distal expansion of a crinoid stem. This crinoid, in his 

 opinion, may or may not be Scypliocrinus. I have recently deter- 

 mined Scyphocrinus from the "Camarocrinus" beds of Oklahoma, 

 western Tennessee, and West Virginia. The material is in an excel- 

 lent state of preservation and there is no question as to its generic 

 affinities. The specimens are closely associated with "Camarocri- 

 nus" in some cases the crinoid lying in contact with fragments of the 

 bulb. The finding of Scyphocrinus associated with "Camarocrinus" 

 in such widely separated regions as Bohemia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, 

 and West Virginia is practically proof positive that the bulb "Cama- 

 rocrinus" is a part of the crinoid Scypliocrinus. Of the fact that 

 "Camarocrinus" forms' the dislal extremity of a crinoid stem there 

 can be no question. 



Schuchert (1904, p. 268) points out that the one "weak point in 

 the argument that Camarocrinus is the float or speciahzed root of a 

 crinoid" lies in the fact that there are no beds bearing quantities of 

 Scyphocrinus crowns to correspond wdth those beds bearing vast 

 numbers of Camarocrinus. The reason is obvious. Let it be assumed 

 that Scyphocrinus was a floating organism, and pelagic in habitat. 

 Upon the death of the animal, as is well argued by Schuchert, the 

 crown and stem would drop off, leaving the bulb free. The point is 

 that the decay of the tissues would probably result first in the disin- 

 tegration of the arms, next the disarticulation of the constituent 

 elements of the tlieca, and finally in the breaking up of the stem. 

 The result of such a process would be the widespread dissemination 

 of crown and stem fragments. Under exceptional conditions the 

 theca might separate from the stem wliile still intact and be so pre- 

 served. Again, the segregation of bulbs indicates that they were 

 pocketed, as it were, in an area of comparatively quiet water after 

 having been transported by current or wind action. The animals 

 themselves might well have been pelagic organisms, living far out in 

 areas still covered by the ocean. If so, the crown and stem might 

 have been lost in most cases before coming within the range of known 

 deposits. 



Both Jalm and Jaekel (in Schuchert, 1904, p. 259) consider it 

 probable that the bulbs may belong to different genera of crinoids. 

 Schuchert favors tliis view also. JaekeFs point of view may be 

 summed up in his own words : 



I am Btill the more convinced that they are bladder-like developments of roots. 

 These at all times had an indifferent character and imder similar local conditions 

 did develop eimilar forms at very diverse places in the Pelmatazoa. 



