Dr. H. Woodward—On some remarkable Cystideans. 199 
than that on each side of it; while the carinate marginal pieces, 
which are quite distinctly seen in this view of our species, are 
scarcely visible on this side of the New York species. There are 
doubtless also equally great differences in the arrangement and 
structure of the parts above on both sides, if we had the means of 
making comparisons of this part of the body. 
“Tn size, our species corresponds more nearly with A. disparilis 
from the New York Oriskany Sandstone; but from what has 
already been stated, it will be seen to differ too widely in the form 
and proportions of its lower range of plates to render a comparison 
necessary. 
“Compared with Ateleocystites Hualeyi of Billings, the type and 
only known species of that group (if it is distinct from Anomalo- 
cystites), our species will be found not only to differ in its much larger. 
size, but also in having its base greatly more widely and deeply sinuous 
on the flat side, for the reception of the column; while its central 
two pieces taper more rapidly upwards, and are longer in proportion 
to the lateral ones. Its lateral pieces, on the contrary, taper more 
decidedly downward, and differ in having their lower ends curved 
inwards. The convex side of 4A. Hualeyi, and the upper parts of our 
species being unknown, we have no means of carrying the comparison 
farther, but enough can be seen to show, beyond doubt, that the 
two forms are at least clearly distinct specifically. 
“ Locality and Position:—Upper part of the hills at Cincinnati, 
Ohio, in the Cincinnati group of the Lower Silurian.” 
_ Although Mr. Meek was apparently unaware of the more perfect 
remains of this genus afforded by our English Wenlock Limestone, 
he had no doubt of the proper order to which to refer the fossil 
under consideration, and, like Mr. Billings, he had evidently been 
struck with the well-marked family character which these genera of 
Cystideans display. His closing remarks thoroughly bear out the 
Opinion expressed in Mr. Billings’s note already quoted. Mr. 
Meek writes :— 
«Whether these several types belong to one, two, or three genera, 
it must be evident, I think, to any one accustomed to study these old 
types of the Echinodermata, that in a systematic classification or 
arrangement of the genera of the CysrompEa into families, they will 
have to stand together in a distinct family, ANOMALOCYSTID®, occu- 
pying a somewhat analogous position in this group to that of the 
family including Hucheirocrinus of the Crinoidea.” 
As it seems proper, according to the law of priority, that the 
genus Anomalocystites of Prof. James Hall (1859) should be included 
under that of Ateleocystites of Billings (1858), I venture to second 
the proposal of the late Mr. F. B. Meek (whose opinion, as a profound 
and accomplished paleontologist, few would venture to gainsay) 
that these remarkable forms—whether placed under one genus 
(Ateleocystites) or more than one—should be arranged in a distinct 
family under the name :— 
