KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLING AK. BAND. 25. N:o 2. 67 



? Bradleyi, M. and W., sp. {Calceocrinus) {Deltacrinus, Ulrich) Keokuk. 



f perplewus, Shumard, .s^>. {Calceocrinus) » 



f robustas, Worthen, sp. {Calceocrinus) » 



tunicatus, Hall, sp. {Cheirocrinus) {Deltacrinus?, Ulrich) {Calceocrinus, 



W. and S.) » 



To the above list there must now be added, under the head Calceocrinus, six new 

 species from the upper limestone beds of Gotland, for which are here proposed the names, 

 C. jrugil, C. t o ca uns, C. tenax, C nitidas, C. intérpres, and C. pinnulatus. When the 

 British species eome to be detined, it will probably be found that, beside C. Fletcheri, there 

 will be a species to which the name C. serialis can be applied, and perhaps two other 

 species as yet unnamed. It may be considered as certain that the names C. abdoiiiinalis 

 and C. gradatus will fall out as unrecognisable no mina nuda. 



Calceocrinus. 



(Flates II and III, tigs. 83 — 140). 



1852, Calceocrinus, J. Hall. 

 1859. Pendulocrinus, ÄUSTIN, MS. 



1859, Cheirocrinus, SALTER, nom. mal. 



1862, (Jheirocrinus, J. Hall, non ElCHWALD 1856 (pars). 



1863, Calceocrinus, Shumard (pars). 



1869, Calceocrinus, Meek and Worthen (pars). 

 1873, Calceocrinus, Meek and WORTHEN (pars). 

 1873, Cheirocrinus, Salter. 



1877, Calceocrinus, S. A. Miller (pars). 



1878, Cheirocrinus, Angelix. 



1879, Calceocrinus, J. Hall (pars). 

 1879, Cheirocrinus, Zittel (pars). 

 1886, Deltacrinus, Ulrkii (pars). 

 1886, Halysiocrinus, Ulrich (pars). 



1886, Calceocrinus, WaCHSMUTH and SPRINGER (pars). 

 1889, Calceocrinus, Ringueberg. 



The details of the above Synonymy have already been explained, and a Diagnosis 

 of the genus given (p. 85). Before proceeding to the description of the species, it will be 

 as well to direct attention to some minor points in the Morphology of the genus. 



1. The fifth Basal. This missing plate we have already seen must be the right 

 posterior basal; I believe that it can be distinguished in certain specimens of C. tenax and 

 C. nitidus, and perhaps in C. tucanus (Pl. III, tigs. 108, 117, 103). In these specimens the 

 stem has been cleanly broken away from the basals so that the facet for the stem is 

 plainly seen: it presents the following appearance. Its margin is roughlv circular, and 

 almost in the centre of the cirele is a small hole for the passage of the axial cord. The 

 greater part of the facet pertains to the large basals (post. B and r. ant. B), and the axial 

 canal is in the middle of the suture-line between these. The proximal apex of the fused 



