CLASSIFICATION IO3 



crinoids, using for the first three orders the names Larviformia, Camerata 

 and Fistulata; for the fourth (=the Articulata of Wachsmuth and Springer, 

 non Miiller) the name Flexibilia; and for the fifth the name Articulata sensu 

 Johannes Miiller, including the Mesozoic and Recent crinoids. The Flexi- 

 bilia he subdivided into the families Ichthyocrinidae Wachsm. u. Springer, 

 Marsupitidae D'Orb., and Uintacrinidae Zittel. 



In 1898, Bather 1 at the meeting of the British Association brought for- 

 ward his proposal for a Phylogenetic Classification of the Pelmatozoa, which 

 was further developed in his chapters on the Echinoderma, published as 

 Part III of Sir Ray Lankester's Treatise on Zoology. For depth of research, 

 comprehensiveness of plan, aptness of illustration, and clarity of statement, 

 I do not hesitate to place this work of Bather's at the head of all general 

 treatises on the crinoids. The labor involved in its preparation was enormous; 

 for the work, while embodying the results attained by previous authors, is in 

 no sense a compilation, but is replete with masterly original research. No 

 other treatise approaches it in practical usefulness to the student of the crinoids 

 and related forms ; no other one has been so much and so profitably used by me 

 in connection with my own later researches ; and the fact that we do not agree 

 in some of our conclusions in no wise detracts from my high estimation of this 

 admirable work. 



The chief point upon which we disagree is the broader aspect of the classi- 

 fication of the Crinoidea, which we have approached from different points of 

 view. He has been good enough to say that although not the phylogenetic 

 classification sought by the modern biologist, the system of Wachsmuth and 

 Springer is " far the best from an anatomical standpoint." 



Bather attaches primary importance to the construction of the base, 

 whether dicyclic or not ; and upon the presence or absence of inf rabasals he 

 divides all crinoids into the two sub-classes, Monocyclica and Dicyclica. Sub- 

 ject to these more comprehensive divisions he retains the Camerata (minus 

 the Platycrinidae and Hexacrinidae which he separates under the Adunata), 

 the Inadunata, and the Flexibilia as subdivisions under his larger groups. His 

 chief subdivisions are: Under Sub-class I — Order i, Monocyclica Inadunata; 

 Order 2, Monocyclica Adunata ; Order 3, Monocyclica Camerata. Under Sub- 

 class II — Order 1, Dicyclica Inadunata; Order 2, Dicyclica Flexibilia (Grades 

 Impinnata and Pinnata) ; Order 3, Dicyclica Camerata. Thus the differences 

 between us in the main are rather relative than positive, as for example, 

 whether we should say " Monocyclica camerata," or " Camerata monocyclica." 

 His opinion that the dicyclic or monocyclic base are characters of more com- 

 prehensive significance than any others within the class has been fortified by 

 cogent arguments which are entitled to the greatest consideration. 



'Rep. British Assoc, for 1898 (Bristol), pub. 1899, pp. 916-923. 



