23 



The first regular interradials are large, tumid plates, and, in 

 one of the areas, the first one is followed by two elongated 

 plates, that unite with two plates belonging to the vault, but, 

 in the other two areas, the first one is followed by two plates 

 in the second range and two smaller ones in the third range, 

 that connect with two plates belonging to the vault. The first 

 azygous plate is in line with the first primary radials, very 

 tumid, and rather larger than either of them. It is followed 

 by three plates in the second range, and these by two in the 

 third range, that unite with the plates of the vault. The vault 

 is elevated over the ambulacral canals, conical, and bears a 

 large central proboscis, which is broken off in our specimen. 

 The plates on the vault are polygonal, tumid and few in num- 

 ber. 



This species cannot be compared with any other, unless it is 

 for the purpose of showing that it is abnormal, and not entitled 

 to a specific name It is four-fifths of a Batocrinus. It agrees 

 with Batocrinus as far as it goes. The definition of Batocrinus 

 requires live radial series, and this species has only four. The 

 radial series that is missing is the one opposite the azygous 

 area. Probably it will be found to be as near B. incultus as 

 to any other species, but, aside from the four radial series, it 

 will be noticed that the interradial and azygous areas and the 

 vault and proboscis are quite different in the two species. Take 

 from B. incultus one radial series and one interradial area and 

 close up the opening, it will be found to be widely different 

 from this species in general form and outline The differences 

 are even more marked when compared with B. imparilis, which 

 has twelve ambulacral openings. We see no reason why a cri- 

 noid should not have perpetuated itself while having only four 

 radial series as well as if it had six. The difficulty that is hard 

 to overcome in this case is, if we have here a good species, 

 we ought also to have a good genus, and yet we are unwilling 

 to take it out of the genus Batocrinus. If our specimen is ab- 

 normal, it is well worth defining and illustrating, and the spe- 

 cific name we have given it will serve for a handle until some 

 one has ascertained to what species it should be referred, and 

 even then the synonymy will not have altogether lost its use- 

 fulness. We are of the opinion that our specimen descended 



