82 Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 
and of an undetermined Phillipsia, in fossil bodies which I suppose to 
be the coprolites of the large fishes inhabiting the same seas, and of 
the magnificently preserved teeth of which I have collected a very large 
series. I have found, in these bodies, remains of Pentremites, corals, 
casts of small bivalve molluscs, axes of Archimedes, and small uni- 
valves. 
These fishes evidently browsed upon the Bryozoa, and did not dis- 
dain an occasional crustacean and molluscan morsel. . 
I collected these trilobites in the Kaskaskia (Chester) Group, sub- 
carboniferous, Pulaski county, Ky. 
ECHINODERMA. 
Genus Hetrrocrinus, Hall, 1847, Pal. N. Y., vol. i. 
HETEROCRINUS VAUPELI, nov. sp. (Plate IL., figs. 1, 1a.) 
Of this remarkable species we have but asingle imperfect specimen, 
consisting of the middle third of the rays. No part of the body, 
column, or upper part of the arms has been seen. 
The plan of the species is very much like that of H. constrictus, 
Hall. The arms are comparatively heavy, ten in number, and com- 
posed of plates which are slightly longer than wide, but so nearly 
equal in these two dimensions 4s to give them a very. regularly quad- 
rate form. At the sutures joining the plates, as may be seen in fig. la, 
Pl. IL, there are ridges running across the arms, which join lateral ones 
belonging to the arms themselves. As these elevations are raised 
above the general surface of the arms, about one third the thickness of 
the latter, the effect is to give the crinoid a beautifully reticulated ap- 
pearance, well shown inthe figure. In several very perfect specimens 
of the H. constrictus, which I have studied, the ‘‘ armlets’”’ (Meek, 
Ohio Pal., vol. i., p. 3), subdivided on the second, third or fourth piece, 
the place of the division being somewhat irregular in the upper part 
of the arms. In this species there are no subdivision of the armlets, which 
are much more delicate than those of the H. constrictus. ‘The method of 
origin of the armlets is nearly alike in the two species, so far as can 
be determined by the specimen. In H. vaupeli the armlets are long 
and gradually tapering to the extremity. 
There are no evidences of ordinary pinnule. As this is also the 
case in the H. constrictus, so far as Ihave been able to determine from 
very perfect specimens, I am of the opinion that these two species 
should be set aside as very distinct from Heterocrinus proper. The 
