236 E. Billings on the structure of Crinoidea, Cystidea, ete. 
years ago I read a paper on the subject (which was never pub- 
lished) before the Natural History Society of Montreal. There 
were several good Conchologists present, and the specimens ex- 
hibited were compared with bored shells of existing species. 
All pronounced the style of workmanship to be precisely the 
same. I have the Lguettage gar an operates that is bored 
h 
y Wace 
smuth, is a Codonites stelliformés, 
that is bored through one of the 
ambulacra. e view I took o 
the sairanh in my paper, was 
that the gasteropod ascended the 
a stalk of the Crinoid, and thrust 
alsa Steet ote ue a hr eeeoe 
en 0) oO carnivoro 
teraped. From t the Ciditer Lasmimne, 18 ges into the mouth of 
-ongieeuraa tag the lat The Crinoid then 
slowly drew its arm together, and held the shell “fast until 
both died. 
A third objection is the small size of the aperture in some 
of the species. In general, where there is no proboscis, the ori- 
fice e is from one- -twentieth to one-tenth of an inch in diameter, 
organisms. It is stated by Meek and Worthen that where 
there is a proboscis, the aperture is sometimes scarcely “ 
than one-hundredth of an inch in diameter.” I believe that in 
many such instances the tube filled up by calcareous deposits 
on its inside, and that when entirely obstructed, either a new 
aperture opened out in the side of the proboscis, or that the 
animal died. In Mr. Wachsmuth’s collection, I saw a speci- 
men with a second aperture in process of formation. A ticket 
was attached to it by him, giving this explanation. I am also 
informed that in some of the existing Sarge of Aniedon “ the 
mouth is an exceedingly minute apertur 
A fourth objection is that the svete is so situated that 
the arms could not have conveyed food to it. It is, however, 
proved by Dr. W. B. vue that = the recent Crin oids 
the arms are not prehensile o animal while feeding 
remains motionless, attached oy: its Sonat cirrhi to a stone, 
shell, or other object on the bottom. Its arms are either 
stretched out to their full length, or more or less coiled up, but 
quite immovable. As Dr. arpenter’s Te remarks have a very 
important bearing upon the subject, I shall take the liberty of 
quoting the following :— 
“Whatever may be the purpose of the habitual expansion 
of the arms, I feel quite justified at it is mot (as stated by sev- 
authors whom I have cited in historical summary) the 
prehension of food. I have domtdiinal y watched the results of 
