F. A. Bather — On Hapalocrinus Vidorke. 341 



remain distinct from tlie radials. From the primaxil onward the 

 arms are free, and occasionally one or both of the arm-branches 

 fork aojain ; pinnules are borne on each or on every other brachial ; 

 the IIBr (and IIIBr when present) may be uniserial, in zigzag, 

 biserial, or fused in pairs. The interradially situated plates above 

 mentioned belong rather to the tegmen than to the dorsal cup, 

 the proximal ones only being to a certain extent interbrachial. The 

 anus penetrates one of the interradial ai'eas without materially 

 affecting the symmetry of the calyx, and there is no anal tube. 



This set of characters might be thought to define a fairly 

 homogeneous group ; and yet the relationships of individual genera 

 to other genera of very different families, and even orders, have to 

 some writers appeared so close that there has been great diversity 

 in previous attempts at classification. For instance, the type of 

 Coccocrinus was originally described by 0. F. Roemer (" Ehein. 

 Uebergangsgeb.," p. 63, pi. iii, fig. 3, 184-4:) as Platycrinns rosaceus ; 

 but Joh. Miiller, in erecting the genus, considered that it was most 

 closely allied to Haplocrinus.^ D'Orbiguy had already placed it, 

 along with the Cyathocrinus incequidactylus of McCoy, in a genus 

 Amblacrinus next to Cyathocrinus (" Prodrome de Pal.," i, pp. 104:, 156, 

 and " Cours E'lementaire," i, p. 145 : Paris, 1849). C. F. Eoemer 

 doubtfully accepted Coccocrinus, as well as the position assigned to 

 it by Miiller, in " Lethsea Geognostica," 2nd edition, i, p. 229, 1855. 

 F. J. Pictet also placed Coccocrinus in a family HaplocrinidjB 

 ("Traite de Paleont.," ed. 2, iv, p. 310, 1857), and yet, referring 

 to Amblacrinus (op. cit., p. 332), he says of the same species: "je 

 n'ai pas pu comprendre en quoi ce differe des vrais Platycrinus." 

 Zittel's " Handbuch der Palaontologie " associates Coccocrinus with 

 Raplocrinus ; while P. H. Carpenter^ and Wachsmuth & Springer 

 have assigned it to the Platycrinidae. Despite the arguments of these 

 writers. Von Zittel, in his " Grundziige," erects a family of Larvi- 

 formia — ^the Coccocrinidae — including Coccocrinus and AUegacrinus. 

 Finally, Dr. Otto Jaekel, while recognizing the affinities of 

 Coccocrinus to the Inadunata, especially Roplocrinus (including 

 Bcerocrinus), places the genus in his family Hapalocrinid^, far 

 removed from the Platycrinidee, in his suborder Costata. On 

 the other hand, Wachsmuth and Springer would doubtless have 

 included the Hapalocrinidse in the Platycrinidse, pei'haps even in 

 the single genus Cordylocrinus, to which they do actually refer the 

 well-known Dudley species, Platycrinus retiarius, Phillips, which 

 Jaekel puts in his new genus TJiallocrinus. 



While not denying a possible connection between the Hapalo- 

 crinidee and the Plicatocrinidse, and while recognizing the close 

 affinity of the proposed suborder to the Inadunata Monocyclica, 

 I must confess that I cannot find in Dr. Jaekel's detailed and 

 suggestive description any grounds for severing Coccocrinus, Thallo- 

 crinus, and the rest from Cordylocrinus and Culicocrinus. The 



1 Miiller in Zeiler und Wirtgen, " Bemerk. ueber d. Petrefacten, etc.": Verk. 

 naturhist. Ver. preuss. Rheiul., Jahrg. xii, p. 21. (Bonn, 1855.) 



^ In Nicholson and Lydekker, " Manual of Palseoutology," i, 428, 1889. 



