Description of New Genera of Echinodermata. Il 
Ane Rep. “Geo, Sur. Terr., p. 127, Pl. XXXV., Figs. 5a and sb 
under the name of Erisocrinus (Ceriocrinus) planus. Ceriocrinus 
being proposed and described as a subgenus of Erisocrinus and a 
comparison made with the Poteriocrinus hemisphericus of Shumard, 
and Cyathocrinus inflexus of Geinitz. Ceriocrinus was preoccupied, 
in the Echinodermata, by Koenig, and hence the use of the word by 
White is not allowable. The genus here under consideration and 
founded upon the Poteriocrinus hemisphericus of Shumard is not a 
subgenus of Erisocrinus, nor does it have any near affinity with it, 
probably not even family affinity, as will be apparent on the inspec- 
tion of the species of Erisocrinus which have been illustrated. Its 
nearest generic relations are with Eupachycrinus or Ulocrinus. 
The Erisocrinus p!anus of White may not be congeneric with this 
species, because the small azygous plate does not rest on a sub- 
‘radial but stands upon two radials and projects upward between two 
second radials. Only the calyx is known, and it may be that 
other parts when found will distinguish it from this genus, or pos- 
sibly unite it with Erisocrinus. We are inclined to believe that 
Wachsmuth & Springer were not very careful in their examination 
of these forms, for when referring to the two species, hemispheri- 
cus and planus, near the top of page 254, pt. 3, Palezocrinoidea, 
they are made to say, ‘‘ We, therefore, can not agree with White in 
considering the two forms generically identical, and much less 
specifically,” and yet, near the bottom of the same page they 
refer both hemisphericus and planus to White’s proposed genus 
Ceriocrinus, and under the name of Ceriocrinus hemisphericus, 
they refer with approval to Meek’s identification in the Report on 
the Palzontology of Eastern Nebraska, p. 147, which is simply a 
reproduction of the inflexus of Geinitz, which is a distinct species 
that they recognize on the same page. 
In the North American Geology and Paleontology, S. A. Mil- 
ler condemned Ceriocrinus of White on the ground that the name 
was preoccupied, and referred the hemisphericus to Eupachycrinus, 
the nearest allied genus then described. 
This genus, so far as known, is confined to the Coal Measures of 
the Western States and Territories. We refer the following species 
fo It: 
Delocrinus craigi, (Eupachycrinus craigi) Meek & Worthen, 
Geo outa. Vol.Vi,-p. 527, Pl. XX XI, Figs: 5 and 1a. 
Delocrinus fayettensis, (Eupachycrinus fayettensis) Worthen, 
Secoo our ll Vol. V, p. 565, Pl. XXIV., Bigs. 1o, 10a. 
