236 
PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW-YORK. 
defined species, unless the Agelacrinites of Vanuxem be found to belong to this group, 
but it appears rather to be a free echinoderm*. 
Such are in brief some of the principal characteristics of this family, as at present defined. 
Several of the lower silurian genera are described as being destiute of arms, and the same is 
true of a less number of the upper silurian genera. The appearance of arms has been re¬ 
garded as a stage of progress in*the development of the type ; and, that in this, the Cystideans 
make a gradual approach to the true Crinoideae, the family finally disappearing before the com¬ 
mencement of the Carboniferous period, where true Crinoids are most fully developed. If we 
admit this explanation, there seems to be no very natural relation between Cystideae and Echi- 
nidae proper ; since, if the farther development of the former assumes the crinoid type, we 
should go behind the Cystideae for Echinidae, which in truth do not appear till the Crinoideae 
have passed their fullest development. We know also that crinoids with pentapetalous bases 
existed in considerable numbers, at least coeval with the earliest cystidean ; and we have at 
about the same time the asteriad type, so that it is not easy to reconcile these different views, 
if we have any regard to the order of time in the appearance of types. 
In a treatise, like the present, intended as a record of species and genera in their order in 
time, there is not . space to introduce much disquisition in relation to the history and affinities 
of the different families of which species are described, more particularly since there is no 
opportunity of bringing all the species of any family together. 
Prof. Forbes, in his investigation of the British Cystideae, has presented a very interesting 
essay upon the position of this family in the animal series, in which he has shown so many 
remarkable analogies from his extended comparisons, and from which he has drawn such purely 
philosophical deductions, that we might rest satisfied with the conclusion. In these deductions 
he has given the credit due to geology for having brought to light the means of supplying the 
links in this chain. If, however, we go to geology, which we shall find always necessary, then 
we should take into consideration the occurrence of these, or other connecting links, in the order 
of time ; and we have no right to neglect that part of the proposition, by taking such fossil 
forms as may suit our views, without reference to the vast periods of time that have elapsed. 
The following diagram is given by Prof. Forbes, as showing the affinities of the Cystideae with 
the higher Echinodermsf. 
* Prof. Forbes has cited the Agelacrinites of Vanuxem, but applies the name to a very different fossil, and 
places it in Lower Silurian, regarding it as congeneric with a species found in Lower Canada by Dr. Bigsby. It seems 
quite doubtful if the characters of Vanuxem’s fossil have been fully understood; and if so, we have the very re¬ 
markable fact of a genus of Cystideans common to the Lower Silurian and Devonian systems, which, in these 
singular and comparatively rare fossils, we can scarcely expect to be true. 
f This diagram is copied as it stands in the memoirs of the Geol. Survey of Great Britain, Vol. ii, part ii, with the 
exception of the geological position of genera, which has been added. 
