Crinofrlra,. Encrinidae. 
7 
which the relationship is doubtful, and for these I shall, following the example of 
Beyrich, adopt the noncommittal term — Entrochus. 
As regards the application of specific names to such fragments, it seems to 
me that if our descriptions are to be of practical Service to stratigraphers, then they 
must be accompanied by names. A description vvithout a name is soon lost sight 
of, whereas a name compels attention until at last it finds its proper position, if 
only as a synonym. 
Termin ology.—The terms employed for the columnal characters scarcely 
need special definition so far as the Encrinidae and earlier Pentacrinidae are con- 
cerned. But in dealing vvith the stem of the Pentacrininae, it has been found necess- 
ary to revise and coordinate the terminology. In case of doubt, recourse should 
be had to the explanations there given (see p. 24 et sqq.). 
ENCRINIDAE. 
For definition, see Bather «The Echinoderma» p. 181 ; vol. III in «Treatise 
on Zoology» ed. E. R. Lankester; 1900. 
Encrinus. 
1760. Encrinus C. F. Schulze: Betrachtung der versteinerten Seesterne etc. 4to. Warschau und 
Dresden, p. 21. 
1768 Helmintkolithus Encrinus (pars) Linnaeus: Syst Nat., XII, vol. III, p. 169; et H. Entrochus 
(pars) ? p. 168, non Isis Entrocha, I, p. 1288. 
1801. Encrinus (pars) Lamarck: Systeme des Animaux sans vertebres etc. 8vo. Paris, p. 379. 
1802. Encrinites J. F. Blumexbach: Abbild, naturhist. Gegenstände, Heft 6, No. 60. 
History of the Genus. — It is stränge that authors should, almost uni- 
versally, ascribe the genus Encrinus to Lamarck ; stranger still that they should 
nearly alvvays prefer to quote the «Histoire Naturelle», dating from 1816, instead 
of the «Systeme», dating from 1801 , strängest of all that they should not have 
recognised that the type of Lamarck’s Encrinus is E. caput-medusae , which is a 
synonym of Isis asteria Linn. and a well-known member of the Pentacrinidae. 
Blumenbach also (1779) had included this species in Encrinus, necessarily as its 
sole representative among living forms. Fortunately, by accepting the name pub- 
lished by C. F. Schulze with excellent figures, we save ourselves from the revolu- 
tion that adherence to Blumenbach and Lamarck might otherwise entail. It is, how- 
ever, worth while to remember that those writers were perfectly justified in applying 
the name Encrinus to what most zoologists (whether rightly or wrongly) call a 
Pentacrinus, for Agricola, the inventor of the term Encrinus, undoubtedly intended 
by it a portion of stem composed of Pentacrini (the Asteriae columnares of later 
writers) 1 ; moreover, among the figures referred to by Linnaeus as covered by his 
Helmintkolithus Encrinus, those of Pentacrinids are quite as prominent as those 
of the accepted Encrinus, while his Isis Asteria is defined as «Encrinus capite 
stellato, etc.» (Syst. Nat. XII, p. 1288). 
1 See Quexstedt : Petrefactenk. Deutschlands IV, p 452; 1875. Also Bather: Pentacrinus: 
a name and its history; Nat. Sei. XII, pp. 245—256; 1898. 
