14 
VICTORIA MEMORIAL MUSEUM. BULLETIN NO. I 
and I much regret that I should have been the cause of his not 
having the holotype at hand for comparison. 
Whether his two species belong to Ottawacrinus at all is a ques- 
tion that might be raised. If they do, then my present inter- 
pretation of that genus will not hold. But more than any of 
the precise differences noted above do the Kirkfield specimens 
seem to present a difference in the relation of the arms to the cup, 
in that the limit between the two structures clearly falls at the 
top of the plates which Mr. Springer calls radials, but which in 
the present paper are termed inferradials. 
This is the point that makes all these minutiae of description 
worth while. Have we in Ottawacrinus a form, or a series of 
forms, teaching us that in the earlier Inadunate Crinoids there 
was no fundamental morphological distinction between radials 
and brachials, and that the horizontal suture between super- 
radials and inferradials was of the same nature as the joint be- 
tween the superradial and the proximal brachial? This con- 
ception, however revolutionary it may sound, would be consist- 
ent with that view as to the origin of Crinoid brachia to which 
I was led by a study of Hybocystis (1900 “Treatise on Zoology" 
III, pp. 95, 96) ; and in connexion with a species of that genus I 
hope before long to revert to it. 
