Title: Annual report of the Regents
Identifier: annualreportof551901newy (find matches)
Year: 1889 (1880s)
Authors: New York State Museum; University of the State of New York. Board of Regents
Subjects: New York State Museum; Science
Publisher: Albany : J. B. Lyon, State Printer
Contributing Library: Smithsonian Libraries
Digitizing Sponsor: Biodiversity Heritage Library

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
NEW AGELACRINITES 185 the name can not appropriately be applied to Siluric forms like A. cincianatiensis. Let us take a short step backward. Prof. Hall in 18681 had described an agelacrinite from the Kaskaskia (Chester) limestone (Kaskaskia 111.) as Age1 acrinites k a sk as k i e n si s. The figure of the specimen represented five long and slender arms, all directed up and over to the left (sinistral or contrasolar), but the description ascribes six rays to the fossil. Meek and Worthen having the type specimen before them, pointed out that there were but five arms, and that, if there was an appearance of a sixth, it was due to an imperfection in the speci- men. Prof. C. A. Kolfe of the Illinois state university has kindly provided me with a photograph and squeeze of this original, from! which it is clear, not only that there are indeed five rays, but that they are not all contrasiolar, as represented by Hall and also in the figure reproduced by Keyes,2 but that only four are oontrasolar, while the fifth is solar; and in this respect at least the species conforms to the type of Lepidodiscus. r ^ jt x FlG j Tlie orlginai specimen To the other features of its structure subse- of A- kaskaskiensis Han showing R 1-4 contrasolar, quent reference will be made. R 5 soiar, and the mosaic pavement of the interradii. In 1883 Worthen and Miller3 introduced Naturalize the generic term, Echiniodiseus, with a single species, E. 0 p t a t u s, from the Chester limestone of Illinois. The single figure given of the species, and all that has ever been presented, shows what is alleged to be a segment of the aboral surface. Of itself it serves to define nothing, affording no clue either to generic or specific structures. As establishing either species or genus it is practically worthless. Notwithstanding this fact, the defini- tion given of both species and genus is full and clear, describing all the main features of the theca and ambulacra. One can not fail of conviction, nor therein be far from the truth, that in the 1 Geol. Iowa. v. 1, pt 2, p. 696, pi. 25, fig. 18. 2 Geol. Missouri. Pal. 1894. v. 4, pt 1, p. 133, pi. 18, fig. 3. 3 Geol. sur. III. 8: 335, pi. 31, fig. 9.
Text Appearing After Image:
'

Note About Images