56 F. A. BATHER, CHINOIDEA OF GOTLAND. 



Let us now return to the examination of the literature and see first whether »Cheiro- 

 crinus - » chrysalis is regarded as congenerie with C. Halli. Dr. Ringueberg (op. cit.) has 

 described under the naine C. typus, a speeies from the same horizon and locality as 0. 

 Halli, which lie regards as more closely allied to it than ;mv other species. Other speeies 

 which the same authority regards as undoubtedly congenerie with C. Halli are two new 

 speeies C. bidentatus and C. contractus, »Cheirocrinus» stigmatus, Hall, the various species 

 called l>y Ulrich Halysiocrinus and probably those ealled by the same writer Deltacrinus. 

 But Dr. Ringueberg removes »Cheirocrinus'» chrysalis from the neighbourhood of all th( se 

 speeies and plaees it without hesitation in his genus Proclivocrinus, the type of which is 

 P. radiculus, Ring., and which is closely allied, in his opinion, to Cremacrinus, Ulrich. 

 Practically the same answer to our question was given l>v Mr. E. O. Ulrich 1 ) in 1886, 

 when he divided the speeies of the Oaleeocrinidse ainong three genera Cremacrinus, Delta- 

 crinus, and Halysiocrinus, and placed »Cheirocrinus» chrysalis in the genus Cremacrinus, 

 while the speeies more nearly allied to C. Halli, such as »Cheirocrinus» stigmatus, were 

 referred to Deltacrinus. Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer, when they published the third 

 part of their Revision, had not had the opportunity of examining the fresh material; henee 

 their reference of all species to one genus, Calceocrinus, need not carry so much weight 

 as is usually attached to their opinion. Examination of the evidence adduced by Messrs. 

 Ulrich and Ringueberg has convinced me that the species which they refer to their 

 respective genera Cremacrinus and Proclivocrinus are rightly regarded as generically dis- 

 tinct from those which they refer to Calceocrinus s. str., Ring., Castocrinus, Ring., Halysio- 

 crinus, Ulr., and Deltacrinus, Ulr.: and, although I do not accept in their entirety the ge- 

 neric diagnoses of either of these writers, I would follow Mr. Ulrich in regarding ^Cheiro- 

 crinus» chrysalis, Hall, Calceocrinus Barrandei, WalcöTT, and Proclivocrinus radiculus. 

 Ring., as congenerie with his own Cremacrinus punctatus. 



»Cheirocrinus» chrysalis not being congenerie with Calceocrinus Halli, a new na me 

 is required for the genus »Cheirocrinus» Hall (non Eiciiw., Salter, Ang.); this however 

 was provided in 1873 by Meek and Worthen, and the genus Eucheirocrinus, more pro- 

 perly written Euchirocrinus, with E. chrysalis, Hall sp. as type-species, must now assume 

 its proper plaee. As a natural consequence of this, both the Cremacrinus of Ulrich and 

 the Proclivocrinus of Ringueberg become synonyms of Euchirocrinus, unless indeed those 

 authors ean succeed in proving that they were mistaken in referring E. chrysalis to their 

 respective genera. 



One diffieulty being thus happily solved, with equal justice to Messrs. Hall, Ulrich 

 and Ringueberg, there still remains for disenssiön the no less important question: — Can 

 Calceocrinus, Hall, 1852, stånd? Here there has been a remarkable consensus of opinion. 

 Mr Ulrich {op. cit. 1886) maintained that it was impossible from the evidence of Hall's 

 figures to decide to which genus of the Cremacrinidse, as he called the family, C. Halli 

 belonged. Professor Hall himsell has never paid anv attention to this species, but has 

 tacitly retained E. chrysalis as the type. The verv fäet that Shumard, Meek and Wor- 

 then tentatively referred to Calceocrinus well-described speeies belonging to a differenl 



J ) I4th Rep. Geol. Surv. Minnesota, p. 107. 



