Anatomical Nomenclature of Echinoder ms. 
5 
supites, as if its homology were quite undoubted ; and it is 
not surprising therefore that its coexistence with under-basals 
in that type should have driven Neumayr to the conclusion 
that something was wrong. Salenia has a dorsocentral only. 
Marsupites has a dorsocentral and under-basals. The An - 
tedon-\dLYY& has a dorsocentral at the bottom of the stem, a 
centro-dorsal at the top, and under-basals resting upon it. If 
these facts be carefully borne in mind, much that has seemed 
so obscure both to Neumayr and to his predecessors receives 
its proper explanation. 
3. Basals and Under-basals. 
The nomenclature of the plates forming the dicyclic base in 
many Crinoids is still somewhat wanting in uniformity and pre- 
cision. Twelve years ago * I pointed out that the so-called 
parabasalsof the dicyclic Crinoids are the real homologuesof the 
basals in the monocyclic forms, the lower ring of plates in the 
dicyclic Crinoids being an additional element in the calyx. 
I proposed to call the latter u under-basals,” retaining the 
name c ‘ basals ” for the plates immediately below the radials, 
bothin the dicyclicandin the monocyclic forms. Every scientific 
paleontologist f now admits that the latter plates are homo- 
logous throughout the whole series of Crinoids, and the pro- 
posed change in the nomenclature has been adopted by the 
leading writers on Crinoids in this country, Australia, Canada, 
the United States, France, and Switzerland, and also by 
Ludwig, the chief German writer on Echinoderms. Zittel f, 
however, while accepting both the homology and the term 
under-basals, or, as he put it, “ infrabasals,” believed that 
the use of the name basals for the upper plates of the dicyclic 
base would lead to confusion ; and so he retained for them the 
Mullerian name parabasals, thus giving two different names 
* Ibid . pp. 3 66, 367. 
t Walther, writing in 1886, homologized the infrabasals of Dicyclica 
with the basals of Monocyclica (“ Untersuchungen iiber den Bau der 
Crinoiden,” Palseontographica, 1886, Bd. xxxii. p. 189). His conclusions, 
however, were largely based upon questions of transcendental morphology 
which were suggested by his study of the Pentacrinoid larva of Antedon. 
Among them are his remarkable identification of the five primary ten- 
tacles of the larva with the clavicular pieces on the radial axillaries of the 
adult, which has already been noticed in this Journal (ser. 5, vol. xix. 
p. 88) ; and as Bury has demonstrated the presence of under-basals in the 
larva, which were overlooked by Walther, as by all his predecessors, 
Walther’s views respecting the homologies of the basals of the adult 
Antedon and other apparently monocyclic forms are no longer tenable, as 
he will no doubt admit w’hen he next writes upon the subject. 
X 1 Handbuch der Palseontologie/ Bd, i. pp. 327, 328. 
