216 The Avten'can Geologist. Octobor, 1895 
viz., II . ^fliihcllicirru.s, whicli oi-curs in the uppermost beds of 
Gotland. Ill II . JifibeUicirnis. however, tlie cliaraeter is cor- 
related with the arrangement of the cirri in alternating fnn- 
like groups. It may therefore hv concluded, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, that the fossils described as 
BHi'ch'iocn'inis /Kx/osarins are congeneric with the species 
hitherto referred to JIi/elo(f<icft/h(s and Ilcj-jiefocriiuis, but 
that specifically they are distinct. 
'The name Brric/t iorr/iiHs was pul:)lished in 1859; Myelodac- 
2^^yZ»5 had been published in 1852; while Jierpetocriniis, which 
is the only other name that demands consideration, was not 
published till 1878. If we are to follow the law of priority, 
without paying any attention to the Various limitations pro- 
posed by the founders of that law, then all these species must 
— if I am correct as to the facts^be called by the name Jfye- ' 
lo(I((('fi/li(s\ If, on the other hand, we accept only the more 
obvious among those limitations, then we shall attribute due 
value to the facts that ^Tyelodactiilus and Jind'hlorriuKs were 
described in terms which anatomically considered were of ab- 
solute incorrectness ; that, in consequence of this, the Euro- 
pean paleontologist who first gave a correct description of 
Herpetocrinns could not recognize its identity with either of 
them ; that for similar reasons the generic identity of the 
American and European species has been and still is denied 
by some American writers — I allude especially to Mr. S. A. 
Miller ; that the most competent students of the Crinoidea in 
America refused to recognize either Jfi/elo(I((cti/Ias or Brnchlo- 
criinis; and finally, that the names 3fi/elod((cf)/h(s and Brach- 
iocrliiiis^ ])eing based on erroneous inferences, are essentially 
misleading. It seems to me that the zoologists, w^ho, as at the 
International Congress, have recently been insisting on the 
absoluteness of the law of priority, under all circumstances, 
have overlooked the difficulties presented by fossils. Surely 
it is absurd that a name given to a complete skeleton should 
yield to some prior name given to a tooth or a tarsal, a feather 
or a fin-ray, especiall}^ since vmcertainty so often attaches to 
the determination of their identity. Names that have been 
given to obscure fragments, and that, owing to insutticient 
description, have failed to gain acceptance, might well elude 
the stringenc}^ of the law. For such names at all events I 
prefer to accept the limitations proposed l\y the wise and ex- 
