S. A. Miller—Glyptocrinus and Reteocrinus. 105 
nates near Collingwood. Near the main land the islands are 
mostly metamorphic with a very distorted stratification, but a 
few of those on the lakeward border of the belt are of Silurian 
limestone with the strata dipping gently away from the nearest 
metamorphic hills. 
This almost untrodden solitude, which has lain forgotten by 
the crowds of summer pleasure seekers, is well worthy of a 
visit by the lover of nature. The magnificent panoramas of 
the island-belt as viewed from the summits of the 
and Killarney ranges are unique and in themselves well worth 
the journey to the region. Fortunately they are as yet almost 
unknown to sight-seers and still remain in their original fresh- 
ness and silence. 
Art. XIII.—Response to the Remarks of Messrs. Wachsmuth and 
Springer on the genera Glyptocrinus and Reteocrinus; by 
S. A. MILLER. 
_IN response to the remarks of tke distinguished paleontolo- 
gists, Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer, on the genera Glypto- 
crinus and feteocrinus, in the April No. of this Journal, p. 255, 
I would say, that the first issue joined, between us, is one of 
law and not of fact and may be stated as follows: 
In 1858, Can. Org. Rem., Decade 4, p. 63, Prof. Billings de- 
fined the genus Reteocrinus and the species Releocrinus stella- 
ris from the Trenton Group, at Ottawa, Canada, and also, with 
much doubt referred another species to the same genus. In 
1866, in advance sheets of the 24th Rep. N. Y. St. Mus. Nat. 
Hist. p. 206, Prof. Hall defined the species Glyptocrinus Nealli, 
from the upper part of the Hudson River Group, at Lebanon, 
Ohio. In 1881, Revision of the Palwocrinoidea, pt. 2, p. 191, 
Messrs, Wachsmuth and Springer reconstructed the genus Reteo- 
crinus, with Glyptocrinus Nealli as the type, and, in their remarks _ 
above referred to (p. 264), they defend their right to retain a 
generic name and substitute any species as the type of the 
genus (always of course having a good specimen from which 
to ascertain the characters). If, they say, ‘It happens, that the 
true characters of the group are better and more comprehen- 
Sively expressed in some other species than the one first de- 
scribed, there is, in our opinion, not the least objection to adopt- 
Ing it as the type of the genus thus rectified.” They think 
their practice, in this respect, fully justified, and aver they 
intend to adhere to it, and say they find “ other good authori- 
ties do the same thing.” 7 
he question is, Can a subsequent author revise a genus and 
