154 K. A. BATHER, CRlXOIIiF.A OF GOTLAND. 



nudus, one of which was said to be the figured one and was numbered 87 Ang. and 236 

 RM. There is no reason to doubt that this specimen is that figured in Tab. .XX, fig. 20, 

 although the figure is very much rcstored and the arms represented quite absurdly as 

 passing under the anal tube; at any råte in Angelika MS. this figure is likewise numbered 

 87. The type of G. tubulatus is stated in the Iconographia to be in the Riksmuseum; but 

 no specimen bearing this name was to be found. It will, however, be noticed that Tab. 

 Hl, fig. 4 liears some resemblanee to Tab. XX, fig. 20; especially is this the case in the 

 position of the arms underneath the anal tube. Moreover the description given of the 

 arms of this species agrees closely with the arms of the specimen in question. This in- 

 terna] cvidence is corroborated by a curious bit of externa] evidence: the originals of Tab. 

 III, figs. 2 and .'5 have affixed to them the numbers 2 and 3 respectively, and these 

 numbers are printed in different type to the numbers that usually denote Axgf.lixs 

 specimens. The present speeimen, which we assume to be the original of Tab. III, fig. 4, 

 has likewise affixed to it a similar number 4. This leaves no room for doubt. Secondly, 

 to prove that this specimen does not represent a separate species. Besides the elongation 

 of the arm-ossicles there is nothing to separate it from specimens labelled G. arthritiats, 

 and even in this character it is not so very far distant from the specimen figured Tab. 

 III, fig. 3, while it is even exceeded by others. The smoothness of the cup, to which 

 the name nudus is due, is quite illusory, for the specimen is much weathered and its 

 surface fractured. The trend of the ventral sac is undoubtedlv peculiar, but the lower 

 plates of the sac are worn away in the specimen and the restoration is obviously in- 

 correct. It may be considered by some that one of the names G. nudus or G. tubulatus 

 ought to have been adopted for the species to which it probably belongs. But it seema 

 to me that this would have been exceedingly confusing. Even supposing that it were 

 possible to recognise either of these descriptions or figures, we should have as our type 

 a verv doubtful and imperfect specimen showing none of the true characters of the species. 

 But experience bad already shown that it was quite impossible to recognise these species; 

 and that I have been able to explain them is due entirely to the printed numbers. In 

 view of all these facts, it seemed that it would be most to the advancement of science 

 to re-describe the specimens without further reference to the confusion in which they 

 were found. It will be seen that they are divisible into two species, based on characters 

 quite distinct from those recognised by Angelix, and for these I propose the names G. 

 typus and G. campanula. 



In addition to the tive species that correspond with Ax<;kli\'s seven, there are tive 

 others found in Gotland. Two of these, represented by three rather imperfect specimens, 

 are well known British forms, — G. goniodactylus and G. squamifer. The third is a 

 species described by Angelix as Cyathocrinus incurvatus and C. granulatus, and partly 

 referred to Arachnocrinus by Wachsmuth and Springer under the name A. granidatus, 

 The reasons for the present change will be discussed under the head of the species. The 

 fourth is a new species from bed e for which the name (i. rcrrucosus is proposed. The 

 last is represented only by a small cup from bed c. and is as vet unnamed. 



All the species of Gissocrinus except the two last corae from bed f. 



