372 REPORT ON THE STATE CABINET. 



GENUS MELOCRINUS, Goldfuss. 

 Melocrinus verneuili, Troost. 



PLATE X, FIG. 5. 



Adinocrinus verneitili, Troost; in Proc. Anier. Asso. Adv. Science, 11, p. 00. 1849. 

 jfciinocrinus ohpyramidalis, W. & M.; in Mem. Bost. Soo. N. H., p. 87, Plate ii, fig. 4. 1865. 

 Turlinocrinites venieuiA, Tkoost, MS. 

 Not j/ctinocrinus verneuilianus, Shumard. Geol. Rep. of Missouri, p. 193, Plate A, fig. 1. 



Body turbinate, strongly lobed at the arm-bases. Basal plates four ; suc- 

 ceeded by five radial series of three plates each, and subdividing 

 upon the last one. Interradial series composed of one, two and three 

 plates in the successive ranges. Anal area scarcely differing from 

 the other interradial spaces. 



This species has the structure of Melocrinus, and though differing in 

 form from the typical species of the genus, I see no sufficient reason for 

 separating it at the present time. 



Formation and Locality. — In limestone of the age of the Niagara group 

 at Racine, Wisconsin. Dr. Troost's specimens are from Decatur county, 

 Tennessee. 



GENUS GLYPTOCRINUS,* Hall. 



Glyptogrinus nobilis. Hall. 



PLATE X, FIGS. 9, 10. 

 Glyptocrinus nobilis, Hall. Rep. Progress Geol. Survey Wisconsin for 1860, p. 21. 1861. 



Body large, robust ; from base to the first bifurcation of the ray sub-hemi- 

 spherical ; arm-bases above this point prominent, giving a strongly 

 lobed form; dome highly elevated, the distance from the base of the 

 free arms to the base of the proboscis being once and a half as great 

 as the distance below. Proboscis strong, subcentral, entire length 

 unknown. Basal plates of moderate size, spreading almost horizon- 



* In a paper upon some Niagara fossils from Indiana, published in the Transactions of the 

 Albany Institute in 1860, I made some observations upon the Genera Gltptoorinds, Gltptas- 

 TEE, Balanocrinus and Lampterocrinus. At that time I had overlooked the fact, that the 

 generic name Balanocrinus had been proposed by Prof. Agassiz, in 1846, in BvMetin Soc. des 

 Sciences Naturelles, Neuchatel ; and therefore the same name proposed by Dr. TrOOST in his 

 Catalogue of 1849, for a very different fossil, cannot be sustained. In 1860, Dr. Ferdinand 

 ROBMER proposed the name Lampterocrinus in Die Silurische Fauna des JVestlichen Tennessee, 

 for the same fossil to which Dr. Tboost had given the name Balanocrinus, and this later generic 

 designation will necessarily be adopted. 



It may however, on the final revision of the crinoidean genera, become a question, whether those 

 forms now distinguished as Glyptocrinus, Glyptaster and Lampterocrinus should not con- 

 stitute a single genus. 



