126 Revieics — Wachsmuih l^ Springer's Monograph on Crinoids. 



I accept the fact, but not the name. Dimerocnnus has sixteen years 

 priority, and, however bad Phillips' description ^ and figures may 

 have been, there has never been the smallest doubt as to the identity 

 of the species. The genus must be called ' Dimerocrinus ' and the 

 family ' Dimerocrinidse.' 



Hyptiocrinus and Idiocrinus are recognized as identical with the 

 Cyphocrinus and Gazacrinus of Miller, and the type-species also are 

 the same. Wachsmuth and Springer's names were first published 

 in the American Geologist for September, 1892, and Miller's names 

 were published in Advance Sheets from the 18th Report of the 

 Geological Survey of Indiana. The date of these Advance Sheets, 

 which I know were obtainable through trade channels, is here given 

 as " October 26, 1892," and we are left to infer that the American 

 Geologist was issued on September 1, or soon after. Now Miller's 

 Advance Sheets were dated " September, 1892," and in the Second 

 Appendix to his " North American Geology and Palseontology," 

 issued October, 1897, Miller cited four witnesses to prove that his 

 copies were distributed by the Survey on September 1. This might 

 not have given Miller priority, were it not for the fact that the issue 

 of the September number of the American Geologist was delayed. 

 This I had from Miller himself in a letter dated March 14, 1894, 

 and I confirmed it by reference to the date on which the number 

 was received at the British Museum, namely, September 27, the 

 usual date being about the 15th of the month of issue. So far 

 Miller's statements have not been challenged ; his descriptions are 

 perfectly intelligible and accompanied by figures, which Wachsmuth 

 and Springer's were without. The names Cyphocrinus Gorbyi and 

 Gazacrinus inornatus must thei'efore take precedence of Hyptiocrinus 

 typiis and Idiocrinus elongatus respectively. In this connection it 

 should be pointed out that though our authors set their imprimatur 

 on one of Miller's figures of C. Gorbyi by reproducing it without 

 comment, they have not modified their descriptions in accordance 

 with it. Therefore their descriptions cannot supersede those by 

 Miller, which appear to be quite accurate. Similar criticism applies 

 in less degree to the account of Idiocrinus. 



There is no obvious reason why Miller's trivial name 'lyonanns' 

 (December, 1893) should not be preferred for " Gilbertsocrinus 

 dispansiis (nov. sp.)," of which it is made a synonym. Miller's 

 type-specimen has six appendages, five paired and one single, but 

 no allusion is made to this in the Monograph. 



Wachsmuth and Springer's principles of nomenclature are 

 nowhere more difficult to follow than in their treatment of certain 

 subgeneric names adopted by Meek and Worthen. In 1865 

 those writers proposed Uperocrinus (which we should nowadays 

 write Hyperocrinus) as a subgenus of Actinocrinus, with type-species 

 A. piriformis. This and a few allied species are now formed 

 into " Lobocrinus (nov. gen.)," with genotype Batocrinus Naslivillce. 

 Such action at least demands the justification which is nowhere 

 attempted. In 1865 Meek and Worthen proposed another subgenus 



1 Wachsmuth and Springer are wrong in saving the species were " not described " 

 (p. 191). 



