KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 25. N:0 2. 57 



genus, shows that Calceocrinus itself was insufficiently defined. Wachsmuth and Springer 

 (op. cit.) and subsequently Mr S. A. Miller 1 ), by taking E. chrysalis as the type of 

 Calceocrinus, acknowledged the inadequaey of previously described material. Dr. Ringue- 

 berg (op. cit.), though he retained the genus Calceocrinus, felt himself obliged to take 

 another species as the type; this, it is to be presumed, he would not have done had it 

 been possible to found a genus on the evidence of C. Halli. It is elear then, that in the 

 opinion of those inöst competent to judge, not to mention other palasontologists of repute, 

 Hall's description of C. Halli was inadequate. The consequence is, as already laid down, 

 that the name Calceocrinus, Hall, cannot stånd, but that the first name proposed for species 

 eongeneric with C. Halli and accompanied by an adequate diagnosis must be adopted. 



The mongrel »Pendulocrinus», T. and T. Austin MS., quoted as riomen nudum by 

 Salter (loc. cit.), ean hardly be revived, for the species to which it was applied has not 

 even yet been described. We come then to the paper by Mr. Ulrich already referred to; 

 and here we tind two names — Halysiocrinus and Deltacrinus, the type-species being H. 

 dactylus, Hall sp., and D. clarus, Hall sp. These genera, however, are founded, not only 

 on a misconception of the morphology of the family, but, in the words of Wachsmuth 

 and SrRiNGEK, on »incorrect observation». Moreover, since neither of the two tvpe-species 

 has yet disclosed the posterior plates, which are all important, it is impossible to say with 

 certainty whether or how far they differ in essential characters from Euchirocrinus. It 

 would therefore not be right to adopt either of Mr. Ulrich's names; but we must pass 

 on to the careful paper by Dr. Kixguebekg on »the Caleeocrinidee». Here is to be found 

 the first use of the name Calceocrinus as including C. Halli and excluding E. chrysalis, 

 together with an intelligible diagnosis. It seems to me therefore that we shall be in 

 accordance with the letter no less than with the spirit of the laws of nomenclature if we 

 accept Calceocrinus, Hall em. Ringueberg. For the type-species of this genus Dr. Ringue- 

 berg has chosen a species obviously a close ally of C. Halli, and to it he has given the 

 name C tyjnis. Since onlv the base of C. Halli is known, the adoption of that species 

 as type was ont of the question, and Dr. Ringueberg has probably done the best thing 

 possible under the circumstances. 



In the same paper Dr. Rixguebeko has founded a new genus Castocrinus for the 

 reception of C. (Calceocr.) furcillatus, W. R. Billings, and allied species: this genus I 

 have no hesitation in accepting. 



The following names have been applied to this family: 



1873 Calceocrinidas, Meek and Worthen, op. cit., p. 443. 



1878 Chiroerinidae, Angelin, Iconogr., p. 22. 



(1879 Cheirocrinidae, Zittel, Handb. d. Palreont., I, p. 357). 



1886 Cremaerinidse, Ulrich, op. cit., p. 105. 



1889 Calceocrinida?, M. and W. revised Ringueberg, op. cit., p. 389. 



Of these the names Cheirocrinida' and Cremacrinidas must fall out together with the 

 generic names from which they are derived. The name Euchirocrinidffi was not suggested 

 as an alternative by Meek and Worthen, for, the}' said, »it is almost a certainty that 



') North American Geology and Palaeontolojrv, p. 230; Cincinnati 1889. 

 K. St. Vet. Akad. Handl. Band 25. N-.o 2. 



