Letter XXL which agrees in every respect with the nave 
encrinite, excepting that the plates composing its base, in- 
stead of being smooth, are strongly marked by lines forming 
rose-like figures, is in too imperfect a state to allow of 
its being determined whether it should be considered as a 
different species from, or merely a variety of, the nave en- 
crinite. 
An Encrinite is described by M. Guettard, as bearing several 
bodies or flowers on the same stalk. M. Guettard observes 
that several encrlnltes of this description were found in 
Franche Compt6 by M. Loreau ; but Mr. Walch suspects, 
with reason, that these were rather pentacrinltes of the same 
species with the one described by M. Hiemer, and already 
noticed. This I therefore consider as not deserving to be 
considered as of a distinct species. 
The pentacrinite described by Mons. Davila, as the petrified 
marine palm, and as exactly agreeing with the recent penta- 
crinite of Madame Boisjourdaine, is thought, by Mr. Walch, 
of the same species with the preceding. 
From the foregoing enumeration it will appear that, without assuming 
the American fossil, Plate XIII. Fig. 36 and 37, which, however, 
bears strong marks of an affinity with the nave encrinite, and the 
fossil represented Fig. 80 of the same plate, to be encrinites ; and 
without reckoning, as probability would almost authorize, that the 
trochitae, Plate XIII. Fig. 7> 18, 27, 33, and 69, belong to separate 
species of these animals, we are yet able to reckon upon the existence 
of twenty-one decidedly distinct species. 
It cannot but be highly gratifying to the British naturalist to learn 
that, among her subterranean treasures, Britain can reckon fourteen 
of the species above enumerated, viz. 1, the cap encrinite; 2, the 
turban encrinite ; 3, the pear encrinite ; 4, the nave encrinite ; 5, 
