Bevieus — Wachsmuth ^ Springer's Ponograph on Crinoids. 125 



A and B of small practical use. Here also the statement "no 

 interdisticlials " is not applicable to all species of Bhodocriniis. In 

 the key to Melocrinidee we read, " C. Basals large " ; but lower 

 down DoJatocrtnus is said to have '-'basals small, interbrachials 

 few." The latter statement further conflicts with the " Interbrachials 

 rather numerous" of p. 310. The analysis of Batocrinidse (p. 361) 

 obviously has Macrocrinus in the wrong place, since it has "Inter- 

 brachials in contact with interambulacrals at anal side onlj." 

 Eutrochocrinns is here said to have "respiratory pores twenty," hut 

 this is not mentioned in the generic and specific descriptions. The 

 pores of Dizygocrimis are said to be " not visible," but later on are 

 described as " small." 



A few other slips of like nature may be noted. On p. 205, under 

 Idiocrinus ventricosus, is written "cup obtusely pyramidal"; for 

 'cup' read ' tegmen.' In the desci'iption of Lampterocrinus (p. 207) 

 the brachials and covering-pieces are said to form a rigid tube, from 

 which small arms are given off alternately at intervals. This 

 statement was put forward as a hypothesis in Wachsmuth and 

 Springer's " Eevision of the Paleeocrinoidea, Part II " ; it does not 

 appear to have received definite confirmation (cf. p. 209). In the 

 description of Siphonocrinus (p. 210) the words "Basals five" have 

 been omitted after " Infrabasals five." Under Rhnphanocrinus 

 (p. 259) the arms are said to be " not bifurcating " ; they really fork 

 once or twice, and probably what is meant is the free portion of the 

 arm. The basals of this genus are described as hexagonal, but they 

 do not appear to differ from those of Arch(eocrinus, which are called 

 heptagonal. The basals of Lyriocrinns are certainly heptagonal, not 

 "hexagonal" (p. 261). Batocrinus (p. 366) is said to have "Arms 

 20 to 26," but in B. irregularis, B. mimdidus, and B. cantonensis the 

 rami are only 18. The horizon and locality ascribed to B. turbinatus 

 and its var. elegnns are incorrect. Hall said Burlington 

 Limestone, Burlington, and Miller and Gurley's type of the 

 synonym B. laius came from Sedalia, Missouri. Keyes' reference 

 in the Missouri Report was possibly copied from the proof-sheets of 

 this Monograph, of which he was one of the artists. Cordylocrintis 

 plnmosus comes from Upper, not "Lower" Helderberg (p. 737). 

 The footnote on p. 284 apparently should refer to Mariacrimis 

 ramosus only, not to M. -plnmosus. Syptiocrinus typus, Idiocrinus 

 ventricosus, SJucalypfocrinus Lindahli, Melocrinus ohlongus, and 

 ili. Roemeri are not new species, but were described in a preliminary 

 notice published in the American Geologist for September, 1892. 

 Cactocrinus obesus is not "Keyes (MS.)," but was published in 

 Missouri Geol. Survey, vol. iv, part 1, p. 187, pi. xxiv, fig. 4. 

 If that volume was issued in 1894, as stated on its title-page, the 

 reference might have been entered ; at any rate there is only 

 one holotype, and that is not " in the collection of Wachsmuth and 

 Springer " (p. 614). 



Finally, some questions of nomenclature need attention. The 

 genera Dimerocrimis, Glyptaster, Thysnnocrinus, and JEncrinns are 

 reduced to one, and for that the name Thysanocrinus is selected. 



