14 THE CRINOIDEA CAMERATA OF NORTH AMERICA. 
priate, as not a single Hnerinus or Pentacrinus resembled in the smallest 
degree a lily, either in stem, root, flower, or bud. Nor did he think it 
absolutely proved that they were animals instead of coraline sensitive 
plants. 
In 1825, Say * described three new species under the genus Pentremites, 
which he made the type of a new family of the Crinoidea, and proposed for 
it the name Blastoidea. He also described the genus Caryocrinites, which he 
took to be intermediate between Cyathocrinus and Actinocrinus. In the same 
year two additional species of Pentremiles were described by G. B. Sowerby. 
In the years following up to 1840, a number of new species of Crinoids 
were described by Mantell (1822), Pander (1830), Steininger (1831, 1837, 
and 1838), Goldfuss (1832 and 1838), Zenker (1833), Phillips (1835-1836), 
F. A. Roemer (1836 and 1839), Heisinger (1857), Sedgwick and Murchison 
(1837), D’Orbigny (1837), Miinster (1858-1846), and others; but they added 
little to the general knowledge of the Crinoids. 
L. Agassiz, in his Prodréme d’une Monographie des Radiaires ou Echino- 
dermes,t referred the Crinoids to the “order” Séellerides, together with the 
“genera” Comatula and Marsupites, which, as he stated, differ from the 
Crinoids only in not having a stem. 
J. V. Thompson, in 1836, discovered { that the small species, which he 
had described in 1827 as Pentacrinus europaeus, loses its stem at a more 
advanced stage of growth, and changes into a free-floating Comatula. 
Thompson also discovered the ovaries along the pinnules. 
Other important discoveries in relation to the anatomy and development 
of recent Crinoids were made by Adams, Heusinger, Savigny, Delle Chiaje, 
Blainville, and Dujardin. D’Orbigny in 1859 described the remarkable 
recent genus LZolopus,§ a Crinoid not attached by a jointed stem, but by the 
lower end of the calyx. 
In 1840 appeared the classical work of Johannes Miiller, “ Ueber den 
Bau des Pentacrinus caput-medusx,” || which marked a new era in the history 
of the Crinoidea, and threw a flood of light upon the whole group. Miiller 
in this work discussed the relation between the Pentacrinites and Comatule, 
and pointed out the anatomical differences in the structure of Crinoids and 
* Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Vol. 1V., pp. 292-296. 
+ Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Neufchatel, 1835, Tom. I, p. 168. 
{ Memoir on the Starfish of the genus Comatula (Edinburgh New Philos. Journ., Vol. 20, p. 295. 
§ Wiegmann’s Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, I, p. 185, Taf. 5, Figs. 2-7. 
|| Read before the Berlin Akademie der Wissenschaften, April 30, 1840. 
