TBOOST'S CEINOIDS OF TENNESSEE E. WOOD. 



47 



In this description we see the generic and specific characters are blended together, 

 but those acquainted with these fossils will easily separate them. As it respects the 

 superior plates of the cup and their arrangement, my observations coincide with those 

 of Goldfuss and Phillips. 



Goldfuss gives no description of its superstructure of hands, fingers etc., Phillips 

 says only "The summit of the scapular bears a conical plate which divides the arms 

 and fingers of each pair." I suppose this must be the solid (not conical in any of my 

 species) plate which reaches to the very summit of the fossil (see fig. of E. ovalis) and 

 which I consider as a character distinguishing it from all the known genera of crinoidea, 

 and must have been very imperfect in the specimen observed by Phillips or he would 

 not have stated that "it had a contractile? proboscis which rises above the short 

 plumose fingers, and which is surmounted with several rows of tubercles." These 

 septa (" conical plates " ) it is true, originate at the summit of the scapulars [intersecundi- 

 brachs and second interbrachials] dividing the hands and rise above the fingers, 

 [arms] — they are ten in number and join together at the very apex of the fossil forming 

 a rosette or elevation in the center. These septa extending inwardly almost to the 

 center of the body could not give a passage to a proboscis "surrounded with several 

 rows of tubercles" in none of my specimens could I discover that the fingers [arms] 

 were feathered — in fact I consider these fingers (as they are called) more or less analo- 

 gous to the organs called ambulacra in the Pentremites — they were not movable as those 

 on the generality of crinoi,ds, — each pair is inclosed, from summit to base, between two 

 solid plates, and their construction shows that if they had the faculty of moving it was 

 in a feeble degree. The septa penetrate into the body to different depths — near their 

 origin at the scapulars this depth is very small and soon increases in proportion to the 

 distance above the rim of the cup, till before they reach the summit it arrives at its 

 maximum where it leaves only a narrow passage in the centre, when the depth decreases 

 again, till the whole space between two septa terminates in a point. 



I must conclude these observations by stating that if the fossil examined by Prof. 

 Phillips is such as mentioned in Murchison's system, our fossil described under the 

 name of Eucalyptocrinites must belong to a different genus. 



The differences noted seem insufficient for the establishment of a 

 new genus and Hypanthocrinus is regarded as a synonym of Eucalyp- 

 tocrinus. 



EUCALYPTOCRINUS LINDAHLI Wachsmuth and Springer. 



Plate 12, figs. 5, 6. 



Eucalyptocrinites splendidus Troost (not Hall and Whitfield 1875), Proc. Amer. 



Ass. Adv. Sci., II (read 1849), 1850, p. 60 (nomen nudum). 

 Eucalyptocrinus splendidus Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, II, No. 2, 



1866, p. 371 (catalogue name). 

 Eucalyptocrinus lindahli Wachsmuth and Springer, Amer. Geol., X, 1892, 



p. 139; North Amer. Crinoidea Camerata, 1897, p. 347, pi. lxxxii, fig. 9. 

 Eucalyptocrinus wortheni Miller and Gurley, Illinois State Mus. Nat. Hist., 



Bull. 3, 1893, p. 53, pi. iv, fig. 2. 



The following description is by Troost: 



This magnificent crinoid, one of the ornaments of my collection, has a low, inverted 

 conical cup, a cylindrical column with small pentalobed alimentary canal [lumen]; 

 the articulating surfaces of its joints are slightly striated at the margin. The plates 

 composing the body are slightly convex and corrugated which character is beautifully 

 displayed in juvenile specimens. In this species the cavity in which the column is 

 inserted is not very large. The hands and fingers [arms] are cylindrical and project 



