Poves in Fishilate Crinoids. — Bather. 307 
PORES IN THE VENTRAL SAC OF FISTULATE 
CRINOIDS. 
F. A. Bather, Nat. Hist. Mus^, London, S. W. 
It is matter for sincere rejoicing" on the part of students 
of Crinoidea that Mr. Frank Springer has at last given proof 
of the correctness of- Wachsmuth & Springer's statement 
that pores exist in the ventral sac of certain Inadunate cri- 
noids.* Permit me to congratulate him on the clearness of 
his descriptions and the conclusiveness of much of his evi- 
dence. It appears to me that his proof applies to certain 
-Species referred by him to the genera Dccadocrinus^ Aulocri- 
nus, Scytalocrifuts, Scapliiocriniis, and Parisocri)ms. These all 
have a dicyclic base, are all Inadunata, and, with the excep- 
tion of Parisocrinus, are pinnulate Dendrocrinoidea closely 
allied to Poteriocrinns. As for the single representative of 
Parisocrinus, referred to P. subramosus M. & G., 1 must con- 
fess that I am quite unacquainted with any such species, 
and that I am unable to find the specific name under any In- 
adunate genus in the published writings of Miller & Gurley, 
including Miller's "N. American Geolog}' & Palaeontology" 
with its appendices. I have regarded Pmisocrimis as a genus 
provided with a madreporite and closely allied to Sphceroc- 
rhms.\ This view would not be quite consistent with the 
conclusions of Mr. Springer, and it seems probable that 
there is an error somewhere. Setting Parisocrinus aside for 
the present, I agree with Mr. Springer that pores of the kind 
now; described by him may well have occurred in other 
genera allied to those mentioned above. But I also agree 
with him that this is "onl\- conjecture, without present 
j)roof." 
I ask you to i)ublish this personal appreciation of Mr. 
Springer's paper, not merely because it is always a pleasure 
to acknowledge a definite advance in science, but because I 
regard this particular ad\ance as due in some measure to 
my oft-repeated criticism of the assertions of Wachsmuth & 
.Springer. M\' suggestions and objections may not always 
have been well founded, but no better justification of my 
former sceptical attitude could be desired than the fact that 
*Amer. Geol. XXVI, pp. 134 151, pi. vii; Sept., iqoo. 
fTreatise on Zoology, III, |). 173; London, igoo. 
