282 Revieivs — Wachsmuth ^ Springer's Monograph on Crinoids. 



with them my interpretation of Miiller's intentions. Miiller's 

 ' Crinoidea ' included all Pelmatozoa then known. His first 

 division was into those with arms and those without, the former 

 group being the ' Crinoidea braohiata ' of writers who preferred 

 a Latin terminology, and the latter including ' Pentremites ' and 

 ' Sphaeronites.' Among crinoids with arms, the stalked forms 

 were always distinguished from the unstalked ; but it is not clear 

 that Miiller intended this as a prime classificatory division, although, 

 the point should not be omitted from any account of his views. Apart 

 from this he noted, not three, but five divisions in the Crinoidea 

 brachiata, viz. : (1) the Articulata, both stalked, as Pentacrinidee, and 

 unstalked, as Antedonidee ; (2) the Tessellata, both stalked, as most 

 Palceozoic crinoids, and unstalked, as Marsupites ; (3) the Costata, 

 unstalked only, and not to be described as a " great group," since it 

 included only the small genus Saccocoma ; (4) the Testacea, erected 

 for the reception of Haplocrinus mespili/ormis, and defined thus : cup 

 and tegmen form a firm, connected test, with five ambulacra running 

 up to the mouth; (5) Hotopus, " eine ganz eigenthiimliche Abthei- 

 lung der festsitzenden Crinoiden " (p. 210), with sessile cup and, 

 apparentl^f, no anus (p. 229). "The stalked ci'inoids without arms," 

 writes Miiller (p. 229), " form two Families. Both are most 

 probably [unlike the Tessellata] provided with distinct mouth and 

 anus." The first Family is further distinguished from Tessellata 

 by having a star-shaped arrangement of ambulacra on the ventral 

 surface of the calyx : " these are the Pentremites." The second 

 Family, which may be described in Miiller's words as " Die 

 Tessellata dieser Abtheilung, ohne Stern von Tentakelfelder," are 

 the Sphferonites " with their genera as established by Mr. von 

 Buch (1840)." It was pi-obably this phrase " Die Tessellata 

 dieser Abtheilung " that led Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer 

 to suppose that Miiller really meant to class the Cystidea in the 

 Tessellata; surely he merely meant to imply that they followed 

 in this one respect the ' tessellate ' type of structure. In any case 

 the phrase shows that he did not place the Blastoidea with the 

 Tessellata ; in fact, on the previous page he compares them, much 

 in the same way, with the Testacea. 



It results from the above that the statement on p. 23, that Zittel in 

 1879 followed Miiller in his classification, is also incorrect. For 

 Zittel really did divide the Crinoidea brachiata, or Eucrinoidea as he 

 called them, into three suborders, merging Holopus and the Testacea 

 in the Articulata. 



I do not know what is meant by " Eoemer's classical memoir on 

 the Cystidea," but everybody knows his memoir on the Blastoidea, 

 and knows that it was published in 1851, not in 1855 as would 

 follow from the remarks on p. 17 of the present monograph. The 

 reference to Pictet's Paleontologie on the same page should not be 

 " Tom. v " but " 2e edition, tom. iv." 



The account of the successive classifications proposed by 

 Wachsmuth and Springer themselves is clear, and will be 

 welcomed by many who have not mastered all the previous 



