40 V. A. BATHBR, OKIXolDEA OF GOTLAM). 



(3) We have now to consider the three species referred by Angelix to Myelo- 

 dactylus. 



M. (?) interradialis may at once be set aside; it is undoubtedly a Taxocvinus 

 or a close ally thcreof. Angelixs MS. figures prove that he at one time re gärd ed all 

 crowns of Herpetocrinus as belonging to Taéocrinus; and this explains how lie ever caine 

 to reg&rd T. interradialis as a possible Myelodaetylus. 



With regard to M. grucilis I am in a state of doubt. The only specimen with 

 that name in the eollection is very unlike Angelins figure, and affords no evidence as 

 to the structure of the cup. Prof. Lindström, however, assures me that it is intended as 

 the type-specimen; and there is certainly no other possible. The specimen consists solely 

 of arms with no trace of a cup, of a stem, or of cirri. There is in Fact nothing in the 

 specimen to eause one to refer it to Herpetocrinus, and it is most probably part of an 

 arm of Gissocrinus macrodäctylus. A slight superficial resemblance to the type-specimen 

 of .)/. heterocrinus® may have misled Angelix, and one can go with Prof. Lindström so 

 far as to bclieve that it wås from this specimen that Angelin described the arm-charactera 

 of M. gracilis. But that Tab. X hg. 28 can ever have been intended as a representation 

 of this specimen is beyond belief. This figure does not agree with Axgelixs description; 

 in his MS. drawings it is named Taxocrinus gracilis» in pencil only, while »Cyathocrinua 

 ii ii u is, is written against it in ink. The specimen from which the drawing was made, if 

 it exists or ever existed, is, as probably as not, a Cyathocrinus. 



M. heterocrinus is represented in Tab. X by two drawings, fig. 24 being a crown 

 and fig. 25 a stem; but there is nothing in either plate or text to prove that this crown 

 had any connection with that stem or with anv other like it. Scepticism arising from 

 other sources was therefore not dispellcd. Had Axoelix drawn the original of fig. 24 as 

 it really was, there would never have been the slightest doubt; lör the crown is attached 

 to a stem and lies close up against the distal end of the stem, by the cirri of which it 

 is embraced (Pl. I, tig. 24), while the iutervening coil of the stem is clearly shown in 

 its natural position, though partly obscured by matrix. The original of Angelixs fig. 25 

 is a different specimen, and the word »ejusdem» in the description of the plate must be 

 taken as referring only to the species. There can therefore be no doubt that Af. hetero- 

 crinus is a Herpetocrinus. It is in fact, as will be seen, a synonym of H. FléicJieri. 



Attention may now be directed to certain minor points in the Morphology of 

 the Genus. 



Owing to the insertion of an anal plate (x) between the r. and 1. post. RR, the 

 symmetry of the cup is distorted in a rather puzzling way. The Basals in the British 

 Museum specimen lie almost in a Ii ne with the radials, so that they might be mistaken 

 for inferradials were not their true nature shown by the Stockholm specimens (tigs. .")?. 

 38). In the British specimen the pröxiinal columnal is glightly swollen and is raised into 

 5 ridges between the BB, a structure which further obscures the evidence. 



It is härd to distinguish the superradials from the ensuing brachials, and there is 

 considerable variation in their shape in the different rays. From tig. 37 it may be in- 

 tern-d that 1. post. II is simple as is typically the case in Heterocrinus. The other Radials 



