38 F. A. BATHER, CKINOIDEA OF GOTLAND. 



morphology of the genus which it is kinder not to dwell on. As a further instance of 

 the confusion of mind thcn existing with regard to this genus, one niay quote his verv 

 natural remark on Angelin; he says (p. 143), — »His species are all small and slender, 

 and very much reseinble sorne species of Heterocrinus. They certainly have no generic 

 relation with Myelodactylus.» 



In 1880 Prof. H. A. Nicholson and Mr. R. Etheridge, junior 1 ), figured sorne irn- 

 perfect speeimens, probably of H. Fletchefi. They considered them to be stem-fragments, 

 but threw doubts on Salters figure. They aceepted the identity of Uerpetocrinus with 

 Myelodactylus, but said, — »We do not consider Hall's having mistaken stems for arms 

 as a sufficient reason for the rejection of his name, and therefore adopt it in preferenoé 

 to Mr. Salter's». They mentioned Ophiocrinus of Charleswortii as a MS. label in the 

 British Museum, but were unaAvare that it had been published. 



In January 1883 Mr. S. A. Miller 2 ) founded a new order of Echinodermata - 

 Myelodactyloidea, to contain two new families — Myelodactylidaö and Cyclocystoididte. 

 The family Myelodactylidaä was founded upon the single genus Myelodactylus. Mr. Miller 

 Avas driven to this step by his peculiar notions above alluded to; notions Avhich one regrets 

 to see he has not yet been disabused of, for they appear again in his »North American 

 Geology and Palaeontology» 3 ). 



In 1886 Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer omitted Myelodactylus from their genera 

 of Palaeozoie Crinoids, saying 4 ), — »The so-called genus Myelodactylus may be left ottt 

 of consideration. It was founded upon columns only, and if correctly identified by Ax- 

 gelin, which is improbable, it Avould not belong to the Articulata at all». 



Matters were then in this unsatisfactory state so far as the public Avere concerned. 

 Hall's genus had been rejected by those most qualified to pronounce an opinion; Salter's 

 Avas considered doubtful; and Angelin, Avho had had magnifieent opportunities for setting 

 the Avhole question at rest, had made confusion worse confounded. There Avas nothing to 

 prove Avhat kind of a croAvn Avas attached to the stems, if stems they Avere, or in Avhat 

 position it Avas attached. 



In November, 1889, I announced to the Geological Society of London r> ) the undoubted 

 attachment of a crown to the stems of Uerpetocrinus Salter (= Myelodactylus Hall), and 

 exhibited speeimens and draAvings which Avere conclusive. These draAvings have not yet 

 been published, but will, it is hoped, illustrate a future artide in »British Fossil Crinoids». 



The main morphological question being thus settled, Ave have to consider, (1) what 

 name Ave shall apply to the genus; (2) what are its diagnostic eharacters, and what 

 its systematic position; (3) Avhich, if any, of Angelin's species belong to this genus. 



(1) It seems to me that Halls Myelodactylus cannot be aceepted. The misleading 

 nature of the name more than justified Salter in rejecting it in accordance with the 



!) Monogr. Silur. Foss. Girvan, Fasc. III, pp. 330 — 333, Pl. xxi, tigs. 11, 12; Edinburgh and Lon- 

 don, 1880. 



2 ) The Amerkan Palaeozoie Fossils, 2nd Edition, p. 278; Cincinnati. 



3 ) Cincinnati; 1889, pp. 213, 262. 



4 ) Revision III (141), Proc. 1886, p. 65. 



5 ) Abstr. Proc. Geol. Soc., No. 545, for Nov. 20th, 1889, p. 12, and Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. 

 XLVI, Proceedings, p. 5; Feb. 1890. 



