Review of Recent Geological Literature. 185 
Mr. Miller, {op. cit ., PI. VI, Figs. 21, 22, 23). The type specimens of 
P. Gorhyi, however, which come' from Indiana, have, as Mr. Miller 
points out, a more elongate and conical cup; the basals also are far 
more visible on a side view.” 
It is perfectly clear that the “ Pisocrinus milligani ” of Messrs. 
Miller and Gurley is identical with the form for which I proposed the 
name Pisocrinus quinquelobus. It is contrary to my principles to des¬ 
cribe new species from a country that numbers eminent authorities on 
the group among its own scientific men ; in the present instance, I did 
so merely because a name had already got into circulation which I was 
anxious to identify in my revision of the whole genus. However, I left 
the specimens collected by Prof. Gorby as co-types of the species, the 
other co-types being in the British Museum and registered E 5493. The 
point is that Mr. Miller had a copy of my paper sent to him imme¬ 
diately on its publication, and that he received it and studied it, as is 
shown by his own correspondence with me. Few would wish to deprive 
Mr. Miller of the honor of his numerous species ; but this open-eyed 
robbery is too un—, well shall we say too unscientific,—a proceeding to 
pass without protest. 
There is one small point in which my description is so unfortunate as 
to differ from that of Messrs. Miller and Gurley. They say, “ The five 
basal plates ” are “ seen in a side view even plainer than they can be 
in P. gorbyi .” I said in “ the type-specimens of P. Gorbyi which 
come from Indiana, the basals are far more visible in a side view.” My 
statement was based on the figures in the 17th Report of the Geological 
Survey of Indiana as well as on specimens in the British Museum, and 
I cannot help thinking that some slip must have crept into the descrip¬ 
tion by Messrs. Miller and Gurley. 
In “The Crinoidea- of Gotland” {tom. cit., p. 24) the remarkable 
views of Mr. Miller as to the morphology of Pisocrinus have already 
been discussed at such length as they seemed to deserve, and I still 
cannot help doubting that “ each arm-blade consists of a single plate.” 
Perhaps in the specimens from Decatur county weathering has some¬ 
what obscured the true appearances. 
But even those acquainted with Mr. Miller’s original views on echino- 
derm morphology can hardly have been prepared for such a sentence as 
this: “ It must be apparent to any one having been a student of the 
Echinodermata that Pisocrinus is not more nearly related to the order 
Palceocrmoidea than it is to the Blastoidea. It has neither the arms 
nor the vault of a crinoid, besides being anomalous, in the arrangement 
of the plates of the calyx.” In the work already referred to it is shown 
that Pisocrinus is not anomalous, or at all events that its anomalies 
are shared to a greater or less extent by Triacrinus, Calycanthocrinus, 
Haplocrinus, Heterocrinus, Ectenocrinus , Ohiocrinus, Anornalocrinus, 
Herpetocrinus, Castocrinus, Euchirocrinus , Calceocrinus, Halysio- 
crinus , Mycocrinus, and Catillocrinus. This interpretation of the 
structure of Pisocrinus has received the approval of many eminent 
authorities on the Crinoidea, among whom I will only mention Dr. O. 
