10 
THE SPECIES OP BLASTOIDEA 
[Cryptoschisma schulzi, continued.] 
f. 25. Lower Devonian, Calcaire d’Arnao : Sabero, Leon, Spain. 
[E. 8090.] A theca with part of stem. 
Cryptoschisma schulzi (d’Archiac & de Yerneuil) : It. Etheridge fil. & 
P. H. Carpenter, 1886, Cat. Blastoidea Brit. Mus. pp. 89, 281, pi. v, 
f. 28. Lower Devonian, Calcaire d’Arnao: Sabero, Leon, Spain. 
[E. 8091.] 
Cryptoschisma schulzi (d’Archiac & de Yerneuil): It. Etheridge fil. & 
P. PL Carpenter, 1886, Cat. Blastoidea Brit. Mus. pp. 97, 281, pi. xiii, 
f. 20. Lower Devonian, Calcaire d’Arnao : Sabero, Leon, Spain. 
[E. 8092.] 
•-. Lower Devonian, Calcaire d’Arnao: Sabero, Leon, Spain. 
[E. 784.] Thirty-four thecas, some with portions of stem. 
■-. Lower Devonian, Calcaire d’Arnao : Colie, near Sabero, Leon, 
Spain. [E. 1063 6.J Longitudinal micro-section of theca. 
DIMORPHIORXNUS, A. D. d’Orbigny, 1849, Prodr. Pal. Strat. 
i, p. 155. Type-species— Platycriniies pent angular is, J. S. Miller. 
v. Orophocrinus . 1 
Dimorphlcrinus pentangularis (J. S. Miller): A. D. d’Orbigny, 
1849 : v. Orophocrinus pentangularis. 
Echinus species, Kentucky, S. L. Mitchill, 1808: v. Pentre- 
nsites godoni. 
Echinus of the family galerite, S. L. Mitchill, 1818: v. Pentre- 
mites godoni. 
ELJEACRINTJS, C. E. Boemer, 1851: syn. of Nucleocrinus (q. v.). 
Elaeacrinus angularis (Lyon): B. E. Shumard, 1866 : v. Nucleo¬ 
crinus angularis, 
Elseacrinus canadensis (Montgomery): It. Etheridge fil. & P. H. 
Carpenter, 1886 : v. Nucleocrinus elegans. 
Elseacrinus conradi (Hall): It. Etheridge fil. & P. H. Carpenter, 
1886 : v. Nucleocrinus conradi. 
Elseacrinus cornutus, B. E. Shumard, 1863: v. Heteroblastus ? 
cornutus. 
Elseacrinus curtus, B. E. Shumard, 1863: v. Orbitremites ? 
curtus. 
1 Miller’s species is accepted. D’Orbigny understood that it was a Blast.oid, for he 
compared it with Ajplocrinus, which he (though erroneously) considered as a Pentre- 
mite. Nevertheless JDimorphicrinus “has never been adopted by palaeontologists on 
account of the erroneous and incomplete nature of his generic diagnosis,” Eth. & Carp. 
1886, Cat. Blast, p. 293. Eew modern systematists regard such reasoning as cogent. 
