SYSTEMATIC PART. 



A. Classification, 



In our classification of 1885,* under the belief that the Brachiate 

 Crinoids were divisible into two groups so widely different in their ventral 

 structure as to entitle them to rank as distinct orders, we adopted the name 

 Pelmatozoa as a collective term to include the Crinoids, Blastoids, and 

 Cystids. In so doing we followed the lead of Dr. P. H. Carpenter, who t 

 brought forward this name as one which had been introduced by Leuckart 

 in 1848 ; with the difference, however, that whereas Carpenter used it to 

 designate the Stalked Echinoderms as a " branch" of the '^ phylum" Echino- 

 dermata, and to include the Crinoidea, Blastoidea, and Cystidea as classes of 

 equal rank, we proposed to treat the same collective group as a "class" of 

 the Echinodermata. We subdivided the Pelmatozoa into two subclasses, 

 the first to contain the " orders " Cystidea and Blastoidea, the second the 

 Crinoidea. The latter we divided into Palasocrinoidea and Neocrinoidea. 



It has been shown by Agassiz % that the name Pelmatozoa, although used 

 by Leuckart at various times to include the Cystids and Crinoids, — presum- 

 ably including in the latter Blastoids also, — can hardly be considered as 

 well established ; that it was not adopted by any writer on Crinoids before 

 Carpenter, except Sir Wyville Thomson, and that Leuckart himself, from 

 1848 to 1879, used Crinoidea or Pelmatozoa indiscriminately in the same 

 sense. 



The term "Pelmatozoa," as having reference to the pedunculate condi- 

 tion, is objectionable, because in all three groups — Cystids, Blastoids, and 

 Crinoids — there are many forms in which no stem is found, and some that 

 apparently never had any. The latter is probably the case, among Crinoids, 



* Revision, Part III. p. 78. 



f Challenger Report on the Stalked Crinoids, p. 193 et seq. 



X Calamocrinus Diomedae, p. 8. 



