TRENTON LIMESTONE. 
89 
127. 1. ECHINO-ENCRINITES ANATIFORMIS (n.sp.). 
Pl. XXIX. Figs. 4 a , b, c, d, e,f. 
Body composed of four series or ranges of plates ; basal or pelvic plates four, three of 
them pentagonal, and one with the upper angle truncated ; second series hexagonal ; the 
third series indistinct, those forming the summit not visible. Column short; lower ex¬ 
tremity very slender, and composed of joints which are twice or thrice as long as broad ; 
in ascending, the diameter increases, and the joints are shorter, finally becoming flat rings 
with prominent sharp edges, being nearly one half the diameter of the cup above. 
The summit of the specimen presents an appearance as if the original had been provided 
with arms or tentacula, but there are no remains of them observable. 
Our species approaches very closely to those figured and described by H. Von Meyer. 
and Volborth, as quoted by Von Buch in his paper on the Cystidea* 5 and also those 
* Journal of the Geological Society of London, No. 5, 1846. 
The accompanying illustration, fig. 1, is from this paper of M. von Buck, and will convey a more definite idea of 
the form of these bodies than the imperfect specimens thus far seen in our rocks. 
Fig. 1 a, the summit, with the mouth ; b, the ovarian aperture ; c, the base. 
Fig. 2. Lateral view of a specimen, showing the ovarian aperture. 
Fig. 3 a, the base of the specimen ; 3 b, lateral view of the same. 
Fig. 4. A portion of the column of the same species. 
Fig. 5, as above, is the Echino-encrinites striatus of Pander. A small portion of the column is still adhering to 
the body, and the side on which is situated the ovarian aperture a is much extended. 
(Paleontology of Russia and the Ural Mountains, pag. 29 & 30, pi. 1 & 27.) 
M. Volborth has recently discovered the very delicate tentacula of the Echino-encrinites (Bulletin de la Classe 
Phys. Math, de S.-Petersbourg, Vol. iii. no. 6). They are placed on the border of the buccal aperture, and do not 
pierce the plates as in ordinary Crinoideans. These tentacula are not fimbriated; and since, according to M. v. Buch, 
the animal was provided with an ovarian aperture, they were not required for protecting the eggs, as in the true 
crinoideans. The views of von Buch, however, do not entirely coincide with those of M. Volborth, who regards 
this aperture as the anus.* 
* See note on page xiv. of M. de Verneuil’s General View of the Palaeozoic Fauna of Russia. 
[ Paleontology.] 
12 
