112 SL A. Miller—Glyptocrinus and Reteocrinus. 
plates in this row, however, do not rapidly diminish in size 
and fade out in their distinctive character before reaching the 
top of the vault; on the contrary they are longer than the pri- 
mary radials, four of them reach nearly as high as the last of 
the secondary radials, and while the specimen is not preserved 
above this, enough is disclosed to the paleontologist to show, 
that this series continued up the face of a proboscis that ex- 
tended may be as far or farther than the arms and the pinnules. 
If we look at the general aspect and form of G. Nealli and 
B&. stellaris there is as little resemblance as we have found in the 
more particular comparison. G. Nealli has a pentalobate obco- 
noidal calyx and large flowing arms and pinnules. A. stellaris 
has a saucer-shaped calyx below, it is elongated in the region 
of the primary radials and has small or diminutive arms an 
pinnules. Indeed there is no striking resemblance between the 
two species, except in the depressed interradial areas covered 
by numerous plates, but even this resemblance is not continued 
in the upward extension of the azygous interradial area. 
_ Therefore, notwithstanding the learning and usually skillful 
judgment of Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer in regard to 
fossils belonging to this class, fortified as it is by the opinion of 
my young friend Walter R. Billings and by Professor A. G. 
_ Wetherby, and the confidence with which these authors assert, 
that “The question of the generic identity of G. Neaili and 
allied forms with Reteocrinus, may be considered at rest,” I be- 
lieve, and express the opinion without hesitation, that they are 
not congeneric, and that Reteocrinus stellaris is so far removed 
from Glyptocrinus Nealli that it is doubtful whether they should 
even be classified in the same family. 
Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer call attention to the fact 
that in describing Glyptocrinus Pattersoni I said it differed 
from other species of Glyptocrinus in having only ten arms; 
there was a thoughtless omission on my part to except Glypto- 
crinus Baeri; but they say Glyptocrinus Nealli and Glypiocrinus 
cognatus, which I had described only a year before, have only 
ten arms. is is to me incomprehensible, for Glyptocrinus 
Nealli was described by Hall and again by Meek (Ohio Pal., 
vol. i, p. 35) as a species bearing twenty arms, and I have seen 
the type, and have examined more than a hundred specimens 
each having twenty arms and never saw a specimen without 
that number. As to Glyptocrinus cognatus, the number of arms 
was unknown, at the time the species was described, but I sup- 
e it to have had either twenty or twenty-four. I have now 
belare me three specimens so nearly allied to it that it is hard 
to point out specific differences. Each of them show the arms 
and each have twenty-four. ‘ 
I do not desire to be understood as saying that it is either 
