222 DEVONIAN FAUNA. 



2. Actinocrinus ? Batheri, Whidborne. Plate XXXII, figs. 2 — 3b. 



1896. Actinociunus Batheri, Whidborne. 1 Proc. G-eol. Assoc, vol. xiv, p. 377. 



Description. — -Dorsal cup rather shallow, conical, apparently considerably 

 wider than high. Basals three, apparently wide and very short, with convex 

 surfaces forming a kind of rim or bead round the base. Radials and first and 

 second primibrachs very indistinctly seen, apparently small, subhexagonal, wider 

 than high, and regularly decreasing in size. Secundibrachs very large, pentagonal, 

 axillary. Arms twenty, uniserial for the first seven or eight joints, and then 

 becoming biserial, clothed with strong, close, tapering pinnules. Interambulacral 

 plates of the first row apparently large and hexagonal, and of succeeding rows 

 much smaller and narrower. One (or two) interaxillary plates between each pair 

 of secundibrachs. Dome apparently not quite as high as the cup, composed of 

 very numerous plates, each bearing a very large globular boss. Surface of dorsal 

 cup covered with extremely strong ridges, forming a coarse stellate pattern. 



Size. — Height of dorsal cup about 7 mm., width about 13 mm. 



Locality. — A specimen of the dorsal cup and arms, on two slabs obliquely 

 divided, is in the Museum of Practical Geology from Braunton ; and a doubtful 

 specimen of the base of a cup is in the Woodwardian Museum from south-west of 

 Sloly. 



h'e ma rls. — The very strong ornament, together with the poorly preserved 

 surface of this fossil, which is in the condition of a mould, has rendered it quite 

 impossible to trace more than a very few of the plates in the lower part of the 

 cup. Those that can be traced appear on the whole to have the characters and 

 arrangement of Actinocrinus, the basals being evidently very short, the radials and 

 primibrachs probably rather wider than high. They all seem relatively small 

 compared to the secundibrachs, which are large, convex, and smooth, and in this 

 respect the fossil differs so remarkably from A. Porteri that there seems no doubt 

 that it belongs to a distinct species, if not genus. 



1 By thus naming this species I had meant to express my gratitude to my friend Mr. P. A. Bather 

 for some kind help in regard to it. I was unaware at the time that he preferred that species should 

 not bear personal names. 



