E. ETHERIDGE, JUN., ON ASTROCRINITES. 109 



sence on only one individual out of the series of specimens in the 

 Survey collection. When making the excellent drawings which 

 accompany this paper, my friend and colleague, Mr. G. Sharman, 

 noticed that the little body represented in the figure, although a 

 good deal worn, possessed a spiral form — a fact which I had over- 

 looked. It then struck me that this might be an accidentally adherent 

 specimen of a somewhat common Carboniferous Foraminif er, Valvu- 

 lina. For the sake of comparison, an enlarged figure of a species of 

 Valvulina is also given (fig. 25) ; and it will be observed that the re- 

 semblance is very close. In some specimens the tubercles on the 

 dorsocentral plate certainly appear to be somewhat worn off, or per- 

 haps less developed than on other parts of the surface ; but still in 

 no way is there to be distinguished any resemblance to a Madrepori- 

 form tubercle, such as is described by Major Austin in his species. 



2. Affinities of A. ? Benniei with A. tetragonus, Austin. 



The specimen kindly forwarded to me by Fort-Major Austin, like 

 those in the Cambridge Museum, is from limestone, and in a bad 

 state of preservation ; nevertheless in the former I can distinguish 

 the two pieces which I have called the forked plates (b, fig. 6, 

 fig. 7), and the three arched and crested plates bearing tubercles 

 (c, fig. 1 ; b, fig. 5), although I cannot see the succeeding spear- 

 head-shaped pieces (a, fig. 5). The dorsocentral plate has been 

 accidentally removed in the specimen in question, leaving only 

 its cavity (a, fig. 26). From a comparison of these with the spe- 

 cimen in our collection, showing the apparently displaced plate on 

 the dorsal surface (a, fig. 12), I think it more than probable that 

 this dorsocentral plate did exist in A. ? Benniei. The fourth or un- 

 symmetrical lobe in this specimen of A. tetragonus is not well pre- 

 served, but appears to be generally constituted as in our species. 

 Under these circumstances I think there can be very little doubt as 

 to the close congeneric nature of these two fossils ; for they coin- 

 cide in the following points — the general tetraradiate and lob ate 

 form, want of symmetry between all the lobes, presence of both a 

 central and interradial aperture, possession of a tubercular orna- 

 mentation, absence of a stalk or column, and the arrangement of 

 the pseudambulacra. On the other hand, as previously stated, I have 

 quite failed to detect in A. ? Benniei any body resembling a madre- 

 poriform tubercle permanently attached; it is also smaller, less 

 lobate, and apparently of more delicate construction than A. tetra- 

 gonus. 



3. Systematic position of Astrocrinites. 



In their "Proposed Arrangement of the Echinodermata" &c, 

 Messrs. Austin proposed a new family for the reception of their 

 genus Astracrinites * (then only known as a MS. name), the Astra- 

 crinoidea, afterwards changed to Astracrinidwf. 



Their first class, the' Pinnastella (= Crinoidea auct.) , is divided 



* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1842, x. pp. 106-113. 

 t L.c.1843, xi.p. 205. 



