49 



the top of each interradius, The intersecondary areas are of the 

 same general form as the interradial areas, but much smaller, 

 and contain from eight to twelve plates. In the intertertiary areas 

 there are two or three small plates in line, one above another. 



This species is distinguished from others, by its general form, 

 comparative length of the calyx, structure of the rays and the 

 interradial areas. 



Found in the Keokuk Group, at Muldrough's Hill, Hardin 

 County, Kentucky, and now in the private collection of Win. F. 

 E. Gurley. 



TAXOCRINUS CRAWFORDSVILLENSIS, n. Sp. 



Plate IV, Fig. 3, lateral view of calyx, arms and part of the 



column. 



This species so much resembles what we suppose to be Forbes- 

 ocrinus multibrachiatus of Lyon & Casseday, that we will follow 

 the definition of their species, as near as practicable, in order 

 that the distinguishing differences, if they are of specific im- 

 portance, may be made more prominent. F. multibrachiatus 

 was not illustrated by the authors, and, as they may have in- 

 cluded more than one species in their definition, exactly what 

 was described may be somewhat doubtful. They were both 

 good palaeontologists and their descriptions, generally, were 

 unexceptionable, but in this case, they gave Clear Creek, Hardin 

 County, Kentucky, Washington County and Montgomery 

 County, Indian a, as the typical localities for their species, and 

 as we are quite sure no single species of Forbesocrinus or Tax- 

 ocrinus was ever found at the three localities, we are left in 

 doubt, as to what should be included under their specific name. 

 White described a form, as T. multibrachiatus var. colletti, 

 from Crawfordsville, which is certainly distinct from F. multi- 

 brachiatus, and, we think, it should be raised to the rank of a 

 species, under the name of T. colletti. The difference between 

 the genera Forbesocrinus and Taxocrinus are so poorly marked 

 that it is not easy to say to which genus such species as we 

 have here under consideration really belong, though we are in- 

 clined to think that our species should be referred to Taxocrinus, 

 on account of its azygous area. Otherwise, we would refer it 

 to Forbesocrinus. 

 -7 G. 



