HETEROCRINIDAE 
lOI 
N onienclatnre 
The broader taxonomic questions relative to this family, as presented by the hitherto 
published literature, are somewhat complex, and have given rise to considerable difference 
of opinion. They have been discussed by Wachsmuth and Springer,^ Ulrich,^ Ringueberg ® 
and Bather.^ 
The first name to be employed for a member of the family was Calccocriiius by Hall in 
1852.® based on the common semicircular basal piece, to which no specific name was given. 
In i860 ® he proposed the genus Chcirocrinus, with C. chrysalis, a Silurian species, as geno- 
type. This name being preoccupied. Meek and Worthen in 1869 and 1873 proposed Eiicheiro- 
crinus to replace it, with the same species for genotype. At the same time they described and 
figured a species as Calceocriniis bradleyi,^ and in connection with it proposed the family 
name Calceocrinidae, saying: “It is evident that this remarkable genus differs so widely 
from all the other knoivn types that it must be regarded as belonging to an entirely distinct 
and unnamed family, which might be called Calceocrinidae.” In 1879® published a 
Silurian species as Calceocriniis stigmatus, with a description, figures, and diagram which he 
said “ illustrate the generic structure.” 
In 1886 (op. cit., p. 107) Ulrich proposed the genera Crenuicrinns, with the Ordovician 
C. punctatiis as genotype; Dcitacrinus, based upon Cheirocrinns clarus Hall, of the Middle 
Devonian, as genotype; and Halysiocrinus Wxih. C. dactylus Hall, of the Lower Carboniferous, 
as genotype. He regarded Calceocriniis as not established, on the ground that it was de- 
scribed without a type species, and therefore proposed the name Cremacrinidae for the family 
instead of Calceocrinidae, although at the same time he did not entirely discard Calceocriniis, 
but listed under it four species which all have the family characters. 
In 1889 Ringueberg (op. cit., p. 392) proposed the genus Castocriniis for the reception 
of the Ordovician species described by Billings and W. R. Billings, and some new species of 
his own ; also Proclivocriniis for a Silurian form clearly identical with Euchcirocrinns. He 
also redescribed Calceocriniis from specimens identical with Hall’s original, together with a 
new species called C. typus showing the correlated characters, to serve as the type species. 
These forms were illustrated with good figures and diagrams, by which the generic structures 
were clearly shown. 
Wachsmuth and Springer in part 3 of their Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, 1886, pp. 273- 
281, recognized Calceocriniis as valid. Bather in Crinoidea of Gotland, 1893, pp. 54-99, 
accepted Castocrinus, Euchcirocrinns, Halysiocrinns, and upheld Calceocriniis, under which 
he described seven species from the Swedish Silurian. Both of these authors, as well as 
Ringueberg, adopted Meek and Worthen’s family name Calceocrinidae. 
When preparing the revision of the chapter on the Crinoidea for the Zittel-Eastman 
Textbook of Palaeontology, edition of 1913. I recorded Euchcirocrinns and Halysiocrinns, 
but included Cremacrinus and Deltacriniis in place of Castocrinus and Calceocriniis. 
Re-examination of the facts, with more detailed study of the material in hand than I was able 
to give it at that time on account of the pressure of other work, has led me to the opinion 
that the arrangement then adopted should be modified in some respects. 
Cremacrinus as proposed in 1886 was described as having a dorsal or centrodorsal 
(median) and two lateral arms, symmetric, one on each side. No mention was made of the 
1 Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, pt. 3, 1886, pp. 273-281. 
- 14th Ann. Rep. Geol. Surv. Minnesota, 1886, pp. 105-112. 
3 Ann. New York Acad. Sci., 4, 1889, pp. 388-406 (separate 1-19). 
* Crinoidea of Gotland, 1893, pp. 54-99. 
Pal. New York, 2, 1852, p. 85, figs. 3. 6. 
3 13th Rep. New York St. Cab. Nat. Hist, pp. 121-122. 
^ Proc. Acad. Nat Sci. Phil., 1869, p. 173: Geol. Snrv. 111., 5, 1873, PP- 443. 502. 
^ Ibid., Geol. Surv. TIL, 5, 1873, p. 502, pi. 14, fig. 9. 
®28th Rep. N. Y. St. Mus. Nat. Hist, 1879, P- I47, pL 10, figs. 9-11. 
