Br. F. A. Bather — Studies in Edrioasteroidea. 115 



IV. — Studies in Edrioasteroidea.* IV. The Edrioasters of the 

 Trenton Limestone. 



By F. A. Bather, M.A., D.Sc, F.E.S. 

 Published by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. 

 (PLATES X-XIV.)"^ 

 Previous History. 

 JPDRIOASTER ligshyi was first made known by E. Billings 

 "^ in June, 1854,' and was referred by liim, though with some 

 doubt, to Agelacrinites. He gave no specific name, but regarded 

 liis fossils as identical with tlie specimen found by Bigsby at the 

 Chaudiere Falls and described by G. B. Sowerby in 1825 (see 

 Study III), and as "almost identical with A. Buchtanus^' of Forbes, 

 1848 (see Study II). This series of papers by Billings contains 

 several important observations and reasonings not reproduced in those 

 later more official publications of his to which alone subsequent 

 writers seem to have gone for information. From the original account 

 it is clear that the specimens there called Agelacrinites were the same 

 as those which Billings described in 1867, under the name CycJasfer 

 higshyi} The misapprehension that caused Billings to apply to his 

 new species the trivial name higsbyi has already been dealt with in 

 Study III ; the species has nothing to do with the specimen found 

 by Bigsby. In 1858 Billings discovered and pointed out his error, 

 and, realizing further that the generic name Cyclaster had been taken 

 by G. Cotteau for a sea-urchin a few months before his own use of it, 

 he redescribed the species under the name Edrioaster higsbyi.^ The 

 independence of the genus itself was denied in 1860 by E. J. Chapman, 

 who referred the species back to Agelacrinites.^ The textbook 

 writers, however, generally accepted Edrioaster, and no change was 

 made in either name or description until Professor Haeckel in 1896 

 thought fit to alter the name to Edriocystis.'' Neither the nomen- 

 clatoral nor the taxonomic vagaries of Professor Haeckel won any 

 favour, and it is needless to allude further to him or to other writers 

 who shared his ignorance of the facts but not his imagination. In 

 that category I do not include Professor 0. Jaekel, but even he, in his 

 StamviesgcHchicJde der Pelmatozocn (1899, p. 46), contented himself 

 with the information and figures published by Billings in 1858, apart 

 from such hints as he could glean from the manuscript of my then 

 forthcoming Study II. 



^ Studies I, II, and III were published in the Geological Magazine for 

 December, 1898, May, 1900, and December, 1908. Plates X and XI of the 

 present Study were drawn in 1900, and diagi-ams made from the specimen 

 represented in Plate X have been published by me in 1900, 1901, 1902, and 

 1911. The completion of the present paper has unfortunately been delayed by 

 the pressure of official duties and other scientific work. 



^ [Plates XIII and XIV will appear with the continuation of this paper in the 

 April Number. — Ed. Geol. Mag.] 



" Canad. Journ., vol. ii, pp. 271-4, figs. 10-12. 



■* Eep. Progress Geol. Surv. Canada, 1853-6, p. 293, Toronto, autumn of 

 1857. 



5 Canad. Org. Bern., dec. Ill, p. 82, pi. viii, figs. 1, la, 2, 2a, June, 18oS. 



" Canad. Journ., N.S., vol. v, p. 364. 



■? " Amphorideen und Cystideen," pp. 117-8, Festschr. f. Gcgenbaur, 1896. 



