200 Dr. H. Woodward—On some remarkable Cystideans. 
Fam.: Anomanooystip#, F, B. Meek, 1873. 
Ateleocystites Huxley’, Billings, 1858. Fig. and Descrip. Canadian Organic Rem. 
Montreal, Geol. Surv, Canada, decade iii. p. 72. 
(Anomalocystites) cornutus, Hall, 1859. Paleontology New York, vol. 
iii. pp. 182-133, pl. viia. figs. 5-7. 
(———) disparilis, Hall, 1859. Op. cit. p. 145, pl. Ixxxviii. figs. 1-4. 
(Placocystites) Forbesianus, De Koninck, 1869, Bull. Acad. Roy. 
Bruxelles, 2° série, t. xxvili. pp. 57-65, plate; and 1870, Gxot. 
Mae. Vol. VII. p. 260, Pl. VII. Figs. 2-5. 
——_——— Gero. Mae. 1871, p. 71 and Woodcut (giving 
accurate figures of both sides). 
————_— (Anomalocystites) balanoides, Meek, 1878. Geol. Surv. Ohio, part ii. 
vol. i. p. 41, pl. 3 bis, figs. 6, a, 4, ¢. 
Note in conelusion.—In the Journal of the Cincinnati Society of 
Natural History, vol. i. No. 4, January, 1879, p. 162, Prof. A. G. 
Wetherby gives a “Description of a New Family and Genus of Lower 
Silurian Crustacea,’ which he names Enoploura balanoides. 'This is 
in fact a redescription of the same species of Cystidean from 
the Lower Silurian of Cincinnati referred in 1878 by Prof. F. B. 
Meek to the genus Anomalocystites. 
Mr. F. B. Meek was fully aware of the fragmentary nature of the 
fossil he was describing, but his diagnosis of its characters was such 
as might well be expected from so able and experienced a paleon- 
tologist, and one so thoroughly acquainted with Invertebrate fossil 
organic remains. 
It was with no little surprise therefore that I found, upon perusing 
Mr. Wetherby’s description, that he was dealing with a fragment of 
a Cystidean belonging to a genus which was carefully studied and 
described twenty-two years ago by Billings and Hall, and ten years 
ago by De Koninck. Yet Prof. Wetherby, whilst apparently 
unaware of the literature of the subject, and equally unacquainted it 
would seem with this anomalous group of Cystideans, has essayed to 
upset the diagnosis of a fragmentary fossil accurately determined by 
so eminent an authority as Prof. Meek, and has relegated it, on 
almost equally fragmentary evidence, to the class Crustacea, an error 
which his knowledge of the characters of that class should have 
prevented him from falling into.? 
Prof. F. B. Meek had evidently been struck with the peculiar 
Cirripedal-like sculpturing on the plates of Ateleocystites, and hence 
was led to give his species the trivial name of balanoides. I had 
also remarked (Guox. Mac. Vol. VIII. 1871, p. 72), “Compare the 
ornamentation of Ateleocystites with the plates of Turrilepas” 
(Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1865, vol. xxi. pl. xiv. p. 486), the only 
other Silurian fossil which has this peculiar ornamentation of 
delicate wavy lines of elevated stria; but there the analogy ends. 
Every point about Ateleocystites agrees with the known characters of 
this singular Cystidean family, and no one who has studied them 
attentively can doubt the propriety of the determinations of 
MM. James Hall, H. Billings, De Koninck, and F. B. Meek, as 
1 See Note by C. Stewart, Esq., F.L.S., Sec. R.M.S., on the microscopic structure 
of Ateleocystites, etc., at p. 240, unfortunately received too late for insertion here.— 
Epir. Grou. Mac. 
? 
