KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 25. N:0 2. 55 



species with a structure that was at any råte vevy similar, the fact that he had previously 

 publiahed a name eseaped his notice, and he used for these species the name Cheirocrinus. 

 It is a curious literary coincidence that in the previous year J. Salter 1 ) should have 

 proposed the same name in a list of fossils for a MS. species of T. and T. Austin, which 

 belongs, as we now know, to the same family if not to the same genus. This however 

 is a detail of no importance, for the name Cheirocrinus had alreadv been used by 

 Eichwald in 1856 for a Cystid, and therefore should not have been adopted for their 

 species by either Salter or Hall. B. F. Shumard 2 ) in 1866 pointed out that Hall's 

 species of ^Cheirocrinus» appeared to belong to the same authe-rs genus Calceocrinus. 

 Shumard was followed by Meek and Worthen, 1869 3 ) and 1873 4 ), and by S. A. Miller, 

 1877 ')• This view was in 1879 accepted by Hall 6 ), who explained that, owing to the 

 publication of the name Calceocrinus in an unindexed appendix, he had forgotten its 

 existence. 



Here anses the first difficulty. Before we can accept this action of Shumard and 

 Hall there are two questions to be answered. First, are the species which Hall in 1860 

 described as Cheirocrinus congeneric with the specimcn to which he in 1852 applied the 

 name Calceocrinus? Secondly, what species is to be taken as the type of Calceocrinus' 

 Now the species first named by Hall, which moreover lic himself took as the type of 

 »Cheirocrinus^ was C. chrysalis: this species comes from the same locality and horizon 

 as the specimen previously figured by him as Calceocrinus, but the two do not belong to 

 the same species. The latter species has been recently described by Dr. E. N. S. Kixgue- 

 berg') as Calceocrinus Halli. So long as »Cheirocrinus» chrysalis was regarded as conge- 

 neric with C. Halli, it seemed right to most palaentölogists to take Calceocrinus chrysalis 

 as the type of the genus; and this was done by Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer. 8 ) But 

 if »Cheirocrinus» chrysalis be not congeneric with Calceocrinus Halli, this course cannot 

 be followed. ()n the contrary thefe are two other courses before us, one of which must 

 be taken: on the one hand, if Halls description of C. Halli be adequate, that species 

 must be taken as the type; on the other hand, if Hall's description of C. Halli be not 

 adequate, then the name Calceocrinus cannot stånd, but the first name proposed for spe- 

 cies congeneric with C. Halli, and aecompanied b}' an adequate diagnosis, must be adopted: 

 in either of these cases a new generic name will have to be found for »Cheirocrinus» 

 chrysalis and its congeners. This verv difficulty was foreseen by Meek and Worthen") 

 who suggested that should »Cheirocrinus*, Hall, not prove to be identical with Calceocrinus, 

 Hall, then the name Eucheirocrinus might be used: of this genus the type-species would 

 naturally be Eucheirocrinus chrysalis, Hall sp. 



') Murchison's »Sifuria*, 3rd. ed., p. 535, 1859. 



2 ) »Catal. Pal. Foss. N. Amer. ■>, Träns; Acad. Sci. St. Louis, II, p. 358. 



3 ) Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. PhUadelphia, p. 73. 



4 ) Rep. Geol. Surv. Illinois, Vol. V, p. 442. 

 °) Cat. Ainer. Palaeozoic Foss., 1st ed., p. 73. 



6 ) 28th Rep. N. Y. State Cab. Nat. Hist. (Ed. ii), p. 14G. 



7 ) »The Calceocrinidae >. Ann. N. York Acad. Sci., Vol. IV, p. 388, 1889. 



8 ) Revision III, 281; Proc. 188G, p. 205. 



9 ) Rep. Geol. Surv. Illinois, Vol. V, p. 443, 1873. 



