332 REPORT ON THE STATE CABINET. 



GENUS URASTERELLA,* M'Coy, 1851. 



STENASTER, Billings, 1858. 



The Genus Stenaster is described by its author as having slender rays, 

 with only a single range of plates (adambulacral) on each side of the 

 ambulacral groove. In this respect it appears to me to correspond with 

 the figures of Umster ruthveni and U. hirudo of Forbes, species which 

 M'CoY proposed to include in the Genus Urasterella. The British 

 species are from strata of Silurian age (Ludlow rocks). 



Urasterella (Stenaster) pulchella. 



Palaaster pulchella, Billings. Geol. Surv. of Canada, Report ior 1856, p. 292. 

 Ste7\aste.r pulchellus, Id. Decade iii, p. 79, Plate x, fig. 2. 



The specimen which I have referred to this species has long slender 

 arms, with a narrow ambulacral groove and a single range of short 

 plates on each side. It preserves two rays nearly entire, and parts of 

 others. The single range of plates on each side (adambulacral) only, 

 would preclude its reference to the Genus Pal^aster as defined by me.f 



Geological Formation and Locality. — In the Trenton limestone, near 

 Canajoharie, New York. 



GENUS EUGASTER, n. g. 



[rayt, prastans; aanip, aster.'] 



Body stellate, consisting of a central alated disc, and five long, slender, 

 somewhat flexuous rays. Disc composed of small, polygonal tuber- 

 culose or subspinose plates on the ventral side. Rays consisting of 



* Proposed as a generic name for Uraster ruthveni and U. hirudo of Forbes, British Palaozoic 

 Fossils, p. 59. 



t ^Ir. Salter, apparently overlooking my description of Palceaster niagarensis, has placed 

 both the above-cited Em-opean species under Pal^astek, as defined by himself; but as it has 

 been shown that this genus has two ranges of plates on each side of the ambulacral groove, these 

 forms cannot, with propriety, be arranged with typical Palteasters. 



There was the same reason for adopting the generic term Urasterella as for adopting Palas 

 TERiNA, both of which were proposed by M'Cot at the same time, and the typical forms of each 

 were specified. Mr. Salter has for some reason recognized the Genus PALiEASiBR proposed by 

 me a little earlier, but probably published after that of M'Cot; and has given the two species of 

 Urasterella to that genus. Now that there seems no reason for continuing them under that 

 "eneric term, they should be restored to their proper position as indicated above. The two species 

 of Forbes must either be placed under Urasterella as proposed by JI'Cot, or fall under the 

 latter Genus Stenaster of Billings. Were the latter genus of my own proposing, I should 

 nevertheless return to Urasterella, and I have no doubt that Mr. Billings will accord with this 



