12 
VICTORIA MEMORIAL MUSEUM. BULLETIN NO. I 
This may be compared with the diagram given in the “Treatise 
on Zoology,” vol. Ill (1900) on p. 178. I regret to find that, 
on the page in question, the diagram of Merocrinus has been 
interchanged with that ot Dendrocrinus . 
It must, however, be admitted that there are difficulties in 
this new interpretation. One species at least of Merocrinus 
(M. salopice Bather 1 ) shows considerable differences between 
the first and second plates of the radial series, leading one to 
regard them as radials and brachials rather than as inferradials 
and superradials. Perhaps there is not so fundamental a dis- 
tinction between radials and brachials as P. H. Carpenter 
believed. 
The originals of the specimens described in my paper on 
Merocrinus salopics (loc. cit.) have now come into the British 
Museum, with the rest of the G. H. Morton collection. The 
holotype of Merocrinus salopice is registered E 14938; and the 
undetermined crinoid represented in fig. B of that paper is 
registered E 14939. 
In the same paper, at the foot of p. 73, Merocrinus curtus 
(Ulrich) was said to have simple armlets. That was the natural 
interpretation of the phrase used in Ulrich’s description (1879) ; 
but the species probably has regularly dichotomous simple 
arms like all others of the genus. 
NOTE ADDED JULY 24, 1912. — These two papers were 
written in the spring of 1910, and the manuscript sent to Ottawa 
on July 15 of that year. On June 6, 1911, 1 received from Mr. 
Frank Springer a copy of his memoir “On a Trenton Echin- 
oderm Fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario,” issued by the Geological 
Survey, Canada, as “Memoir No. 15-P,” and bearing the 
date 1911. Mr. Springer’s “Letter of Transmittal” was dated 
June 28, 1910. That memoir contains an account, with beauti- 
ful drawings, of three specimens referred to Ottawacrinus typus 
and three referred to a new species, 0 . billing si. 
Had I been aware of Mr. Springer’s work, it is probable that 
the present papers would never have been written. Even after 
they were written and the drawings prepared, I should have 
sought to withdraw them from publication had I anticipated 
this delay of more than two years. Further, the differences 
between my account and that of Mr. Springer, based on far 
qTeb. 1896, Geol. Mag., dec. 4, vol. 3, p. 71. 
