38 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



(Meek), which are composed of a multitude of small ossicles each 

 bearing a spine. 



The form described as Heliophycus stelliforme by 

 Miller and Dyer from the "Hudson River Group" (Maysville) 

 of Ohio, judging from the figures, 1 is exactly like our species and 

 may possibly also be the impression of a multispinose starfish. 



Lepidasterella Schuchert 



This interesting genus is based on a specimen of Lepidas- 

 terella babcocki Schuchert, the genoholotype, from the 

 Upper Devonian near Ithaca. The State Museum contains two 

 specimens from the Cashaqua shale of the Port- 

 age in Hunt's quarry at Interlaken, N. Y., also 

 mentioned by Professor Schuchert {op. cit., 

 p. 161), which are more perfect than the holo- 

 type Of the species and therefore permit to add a 

 few data to the knowledge of this extremely 

 striking and as yet very imperfectly known 

 starfish. 



Fig. 14 L e p i - One of the Museum specimens was figured by 



d. a s t e r e 1 1 a Doctor Clarke in the Report of the Director of 



babcocki Schu- tJ Science Division for igos, opposite page 36, 

 chert. Portion of . . . ' , J D ! FF , \ 5 ° ' 



abactinal side of being referred there to the nearest related genus, 



ray . x 5 namely, Helianthaster. While the holotype is a 



natural mold of the abactinal side in sandstone, 

 this specimen retains the abactinal surface itself. As the figure 

 clearly shows, the plates of the radial and of the supramarginal 

 columns stand out clearly as tumid projections. Nevertheless their 

 sutures can not be made out, because the surface is covered by a 

 granular test (see pi. X, fig. 6). There is little doubt that this 

 represents a skin that was originally present in the specimen cover- 

 ing the entire abactinal and an unknown portion of the actinal 

 skeleton. Such a granular exterior skin has also been observed by 

 Schondorf in H el i'anth aster rhenanus 2 



Another interesting feature not shown by the genoholotype but 

 clearly exhibited in our specimens, is the remarkable development of 

 the interbrachial disk areas. While Schuchert states that there 

 appear to be no ambital areas as the inframarginals of adjoining 



1 Contributions to Palaeontology, no. 2, p. 2. 1878. 



2 Palaeontographica, 36 :2i8f. 1899-igco. 



