VOLUME 95, NUMBER 330 JUNE 8, 1988 Hombergian (Chesterian) Echinoderm Paleontology and Paleoecology, south-central Kentucky by Donald R. Chesnut, Jr. and Frank R. Ettensohn MCZ LIBRARY JUN 30 1988 HARVARD UNIVERSITY Paleontological Research Institution 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, New York, 14850 U.S.A. E PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION Officers Раба р аа cora ue eI. E LO E E а WILLIAM P. S. VENTRESS VICESPRISIDENT SA vr ED ык с сере кы T S JAMES E. SORAUF сес яр Барр аа АВА А а аа ана HENRY W. THEISEN IREASSRER OO E А ОСЕНИ MIT JAMES C. SHOWACRE JASSISTANT-LERBASURER прса ар Sis ee ыр Бр Јонм L. CISNE ДЫС а а ТТЕ es we аа ар ул ку de PETER К. HOOVER LEGAL ЕРИ НЕ EOD uu LN RA eee alan ты HENRY W. THEISEN Trustees BRUCE М. BELL (to 6/30/90) WILLIAM A. OLIVER, JR. (to 6/30/89) RICHARD E. BYRD (to 6/30/89) EDWARD B. PICOU, JR. (to 6/30/89) Јонм L. CisNE (to 6/30/88) JAMES C. SHOWACRE (to 6/30/90) J. THOMAS Ротко, JR. (to 6/30/90) JAMES E. SoRAUF (to 6/30/88) HARRY A. LEFFINGWELL (to 6/30/90) HENRY W. THEISEN (to 6/30/89) ROBERT M. LINSLEY (to 6/30/89) RAYMOND VAN HoUTTE (to 6/30/88) CATHRYN NEWTON (to 6/30/88) WILLIAM P. S. VENTRESS (to 6/30/90) A. D. WARREN, JR. (to 6/30/88) BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY and PALAEONTOGRAPHICA AMERICANA PETER K HOOVER Епа а узул уох ара a а LUN и e EDITOR Reviewers for this issue A. S. HOROWITZ N. G. LANE D. B. MACURDA A list of titles in both series, and available numbers and volumes may be had on request. Volumes 1—23 of Bulletins of American Paleontology have been reprinted by Kraus Reprint Corporation, Route 100, Millwood, New York 10546 USA. Volume 1 of Palaeontographica Americana has been reprinted by Johnson Reprint Corporation, 111 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003 USA. Subscriptions to Bulletins of American Paleontology may be started at any time, by volume or year. Current price is US $30.00 per volume. Numbers of Palaeontographica Americana are priced individually, and are invoiced separately on request. | for additional information, write or call: Paleontological Research Institution 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 USA (607) 273-6623 The Paleontological Research Institution acknowledges with special thanks the contributions of the following individuals and institutions PATRONS ($1000 or more at the discretion of the contributor) JAMES E. ALLEN (1967) ROBERT C. HOERLE (1974-1977) AMERICAN Оп, COMPANY (1976) RICHARD I. JOHNSON (1967, 1986) | ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY (1978) J. M. McDoNALD FouNDATION (1972, 197 8) CHRISTINA І. BALK (1970, 1982, 1983) Мови, OIL CORPORATION (1977 TO DATE) Hans M. Boru (1984) SAMUEL T. РЕЕ$ (1981) Котн G. Browne (1986) RICHARD E. РЕтїт (1983) MR. & Mns. KENNETH E. CASTER (1967) ROBERT А. PoHowsky (1982) CHEVRON OIL СОМРАМУ (1978, 1982) TEXACO, INC. (1978, 1982, 1987) ExxoN CoMPANY (1977 TO DATE) UNION OIL OF CALIFORNIA (1982 TO DATE) Lois S. FOGELSANGER (1966) UNITED STATES STEEL FOUNDATION (1976) GULF OIL CORPORATION (1978) CHARLES G. VENTRESS (1983 TO DATE) MERRILL W. Haas (1975) CHRISTINE С. WAKELEY (1976-1984) NORMAN E. WEISBORD (1983) INDUSTRIAL SUBSCRIBERS (1988) ($300 per annum) EXXON PRODUCTION RESEARCH COMPANY MOBIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCING SERVICES SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (continued overleaf) LIFE MEMBERS ($200) R. TUCKER ABBOTT WILLIAM F. Кт ОЕ, II JAMES E. ALLEN ЛЕ KŘÍŽ ELIZABETH А. BALCELLS-BALDWIN THORWALD KRUCKOW CHRISTINA L. BALK RALPH L. LANGENHEIM, JR. Bruce M. BELL Harry A. LEFFINGWELL ROBERT A. BLACK EGBERT С. LEIGH, ЈЕ. HANS BOLLI GERARD A. LENHARD DAviD JOHN BOTTJER ТОШЕ М. MARINCOVICH RuTH G. BROWNE DoNALD К. МООКЕ J. DAvip BUKRY SAKAE O'HARA SYBIL B. BURGER SAMUEL T. PEES LYLE D. CAMPBELL RICHARD E. PETIT JOHN L. CARTER ROBERT A. POHOWSKY ANNELIESE S. CASTER Јонм РОЈЕТА, ЈЕ. KENNETH E. CASTER JOHN К. РОРЕ JOHN E. DUPONT ANTHONY RESO ARTHUR N. DUSENBURY, JR. ARTHUR W. ROCKER Lois S. FOGELSANGER WALTER E. SAGE, III A. EUGENE FRITSCHE JOHN B. SAUNDERS ERNEST H. GILMOUR JUDITH SCHIEBOUT MERRILL W. HAAS MiRIAM W. SCHRINER ANITA G. HARRIS EDWARD 5. SLAGLE STEVEN M. HERRICK Davip Н. STANSBERY ROBERT С. HOERLE CHARLES G. VENTRESS F. D. HOLLAND, ЈЕ. Емпу Н. VOKES RICHARD I. JOHNSON HAROLD E. VOKES Davip B. JONES CHRISTINE C. WAKELEY PETER JUNG THOMAS К. WALLER DAVID GARRETT KERR NorMAN E. WEISBORD СЕсп, Н. KINDLE RALPH Н. WILLOUGHBY MARY E. KINDLE ARMOUR C. WINSLOW VICTOR А. ZULLO Membership dues, subscriptions, and contributions are all important sources of funding, and allow the Paleontological Research Institution to continue its existing programs and services. The P.R.I. publishes two series of respected paleontological monographs, Bulletins of American Paleontology and Palaeontographica Americana, that give authors a relatively inexpensive outlet for the publication of significant longer manuscripts. In addition, it reprints rare but important older works from the pa- leontological literature. The P.R.I. headquarters in Ithaca, New York, houses a collection of inver- tebrate type and figured specimens, among the five largest in North America; an extensive collection of well-documented and curated fossil specimens that can form the basis for significant future pa- leontologic research; and a comprehensive paleontological research library. The P.R.I. wants to grow, so that it can make additional services available to professional paleontologists, and maintain its position as a leader in providing Resources for Paleontologic Research. The Paleontological Research Institution is a non-profit, non-private corporation, and contributions may be U.S. income tax deductible. For more information on P.R.I. programs, memberships, or subscriptions to P.R.I. publications, call or write: Peter R. Hoover Director Paleontological Research Institution 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 U.S.A. 607-273-6623 VOLUME 95, NUMBER 330 JUNE 8, 1988 Hombergian (Chesterian) Echinoderm Paleontology and Paleoecology, south-central Kentucky by Donald R. Chesnut, Jr. and Frank R. Ettensohn Paleontological Research Institution 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, New York, 14850 U.S.A. Library of Congress Card Number: 88-61240 | Printed in the United States of America | Allen Press, Inc. | Lawrence, KS 66044 U.S.A. CONTENTS | Page | АША ае ана аа И RETOUR а 9 Superfamily Cromyocrinacea | Acknowledgements d eet харыс DN NE 5 Family Phanoccmidaes e o eere 47 | ЙО ОШ M RCRUM CIR er a ts >) Family Bupachyeumidac ................ 50 | | Abbreviations of REpPOStOnes or Ewana озшде 6 Subclass Flexibilia | | Stratigraphy Т ана a EE о it Order Taxocrinida | | Depositional! н сона Шо een аса аа 9 Superfamily Taxocrinacea | Paleoecology Family Synenoobimidde -<-s cni 51 | | ПА ОДО ОЕ e due Лос tes гъ im а у уч 14 Family Тахосгииёае е e ende. 92 | | Physical Enyaronmenia saca а бадыбы а ава 14 Subclass Camerata | | SRA WOM OMY дад» хома E M а а 15 Order Monobathrida Synecology Suborder Compsocrinina | Communities Superfamily Hexacrinitacea ето ВО ОЈ GONE S e Уя 16 Family Dichocrinidae | Sott-Bötton СОУ савана thane а e 1 Subfamily Talarocrininae ............. 23 | f Меке] апр ке о. GOD unity ce so coe ens с. бузба 18 Subfamily Dichocrininae ............. 56 | Species Richness and Equitability n.: уус... у: 18 Subfamily Camptocrininae ........... 57 | | RelationshipssBetweemsspecles: 2.562. fen ns o ee 21 Family Acrocrinidae | Ahiasonismue ccc cce ce EU EE аза аа 21 Subfamily Acrocrimmac- 7409 57 | ; SymbiosiSant We ca radi з аа а С 21 Class Blastoidea Autecology Order Spiraculata | Pecina Mec anisiis ree ar аа X PM 24 Баур тоа јаве аа ИЛ 58 | | чере ома ао Ra MEETS ELA p 24 Class Edrioasteroidea | ў Тое eU анн ана 25 Order Isorophida | Јеров Боса оде оя у ны РА ИСА ae oe 25 Suborder Isorophina | SOAVE Быны са E паа NOD SN T oen 25 ава ува Роја о аб roa Пасат 60 | Avive Pisdators Care De As an. Vee. аа, ае 25 Class Echinoidea | | bunctonabMorplioloeyee вар sewn ЕЕ 26 Subclass Perischoechinoidea Spinosa Е Е ЕТ 26 Order Echinocystitoida А ТАЈА АОБА e Apr и е E О DE vn) Family Espldesthidae 22:12 аа 62 | | Vg p AMIS е е We Ov а 27 Order Palaechinoida | | оўва ОИ ИУ на кек ыкы 28 Pamilyepalaechimidac =~... ие, ан д 62 | | ЕСС О КОЕ И tee E 28 Order Cidaroida | | Hypertone dAn r екум. Siena АЛ 28 Family Атеһаеосаййае и S 63 | | Systematic Paleontology Subphylum Asterozoa | ШҮ ОШО ОЙ Кин de аа а ae nage a NE 29 Class Stelleroidea | | Class Crinoidea Subclass Ophiuroidea | Subclass Inadunata Order Phyrnophiurida Order Cladida Suborder Euryalina Suborder Poteriocrinitina Family Onychasteridae ................. 64 | Superfamily Zeacrinitacea Order Oegophiurida | ) Family Zeacrinitidae ................... 30 Suborder Lysophiurina | Superfamily Pirasocrinacea овалу ЕПСШйазїег1йаё_ d m eL аа 65 | Еа Pirasoonnidac кк эшк л окна 36 Subclass Asteroidea | " Superfamily Texacrinacea Order Spinulosida | | Kamiy Сплит од боје оте s eres c EE 36 Suborder Eugnathina | Superfamily Scytalocrinacea Family ава оса они cC e quee дыл, 66 | Ба улаза ос ав а ce t uuo dee. 38 unidentifiable order, suborder, and family 68 | | Family Blothrocrinidae Ма а УК 42 Appendix 1: Reference Section for the Sloans Valley { Family Aphelecrinidae ................. 43 member of the Pennington Formation ................. 68 Superfamily Lophocrinacea Appendix 2: Locality Register and Section Descriptions ... 69 Family Stellarocrinidae ................ 44 ЖОРО СОЛК ТКО E Л оо он os 72 Superfamily Agassizocrinacea егы E IE, MRE А РЕ ај ам 80 | Family Ampelocrinidae ................ 2 Пао на GOL cho masked на hard socie tus aids 92 Family Agassizocrinidae ............... 45 Superfamily Decadocrinacea Familys®ecadocrimidacs а etek Es 47 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Text-figure Page 1. Map showing the location of the seven echinoderm-collection localities cited in this study ................................... 6 2. Approximate chronostratigraphic correlation of Middle Chesterian rocks in the study area ................................... 7 SEM MTS а сеопоп tort Melo doas Valleyimember оа ина аа. жылы а 8 4. Reconstruction of Late Chesterian depositional environments in the study area ............................................ 10 а са боШ Orth ees ВЕЕ Весе С а eee D eee edo ecu нар аа ара 11 б. Рао вешта Тесей ОЕШ Ө а те вёдшейсе и А а Ў Аа пон А. 11 7 Photograpi of poeudonodale in the Sloans Valley енерала weve uid sek cine ПА аа ын 12 s Т ОрТАр о a shoal Vody m ties lot sey АШӨулїйешбег............›............ә............................+..› дни 12 9. Schematic reconstruction of shoal-basin sequence in the Sloans Valley lagoon .............................................. 13 10. Interpretation of feeding levels or tiers for major echinoderm genera in the study ........................................... 16 Pie вала помени ота О ОЗОН арос ИИК ва ана dr а av nhs vi cle EET ашыр 18 12. Reconstruction of probable epifaunal and semi-infaunal browsing life modes for Sloans Абу ОШО О E E 19 13. Examples of Sloans Valley crinoids bearing spines and spinelike plates: .................................................... 22 14. Possible commensalism between Onychaster strimplei and Pulaskicrinus campanulus ....................................... 23 15. Possible commensalism between small “hitchhiking” crinoids and bryozoans .............................................. 23 16. Possible life position of Pterotocrinus acutus and Pterotocrinus CLAUS! Ss ee led t cM NEL эрсе 24 ЕРИ РУТ tn extended ind CONTAC РОО QS а CI PEt а ы Ine. 25 18. Possible predation by Calyptactis spenceri, n. sp. on fenestrate ШОРО Ше P аа аса ара ара ERAS US ана е, RECON. 26 И Zap do EE ти а ОА WTCC er mI LC EU улу АЕРО 34 Ш а АШАР eA IDONEOS c c EE зни. 38 ЕШ а ик О ОО аса аце а аа as ВЕ 38 а ана Ato О И аны ыйын 40 ШОЛ ВЕ Во E TAE E ЕН КА 45 АЕРА ТЕ ГАН аца а аа ак а Е ЕУ 50 | 25. Cover plate аи еа ЛО Ж SGN ONO alles i eo aca mec о. 60 SOC ЖЕК pite quide endete ИЮ ЗА, ЦО ..............у,...........................1.. р. айыЛ RR EAE. 61 а actu tvOne P ЕИ Б 28 Уд вра cc нае асн няна анна а amr mf etm aa 62 26. Бе аа HIE OI Д а НЕО ЕЛУ KI See o аа а аа та MODE о. 64 297 У тен лаке O E ИШ Ца, БОИ уз... o Me sac ананас ERAN а ВЫ у... LL 67 | LIST OF TABLES Table Page | 1. Number of specimens of echinoderms found at collecting localities in this study ............................................ 20 | За аи тој Буре з ресе CURES оа merui Cure on oco ЖЕНДИ ve ........ 31 3. Numbers'of seeuncdibrachialsinsthetlolótypes of species of Zeacrinites" .................... ANE UE eee ies 33 d ATIS өш DUET Ө ОЛО О ЫЫ айз ый. d wen Sere ee cere med enr ВИО hue een 35 п AEM асое oE IUSTO рр ра TIUS eae ае bs... hE аана ЛОТО КАИ so ss 41 | б. Explanduombfsss TODO S Е ОИ Она аа er ›.................... у.б aad д foldout inside back cover HOMBERGIAN (CHESTERIAN) ECHINODERM PALEONTOLOGY AND PALEOECOLOGY, SOUTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY DONALD R. CHESNUT, JR.!, and FRANK К. ETTENSOHN? ABSTRACT A highly fossiliferous unit in the lower part of the Pennington Formation (Chesterian), herein called the Sloans Valley member, was one of the most important Carboniferous fossil beds in the United States during the nineteenth century. The Sloans Valley member was deposited in a protected, shallow-water, marine environment shoreward of a carbonate-shoal complex, which is represented by the Glen Dean Limestone. Oxygenated waters from the seaward direction and land-derived nutrients promoted a prolific echinoderm fauna in this wave-protected environment. Forty-five species of echinoderms belonging to 38 genera were found in the Sloans Valley and Glen Dean and are described in this study. The classes Crinoidea, Blastoidea, Edrioasteroidea, Echinoidea, Asteroidea, and Ophiuroidea are represented. Four new species, Linocrinus laurelensis, Palaechinus jacksoni, Archaeocidaris hemispinifera, and Calyptactis spenceri, and two new genera, Wetherbyocrinus and Pulaskicrinus, are described and illustrated. In addition, numerous new combinations and taxonomic revisions are suggested. Finally, the concepts of various species within the genera Zeacrinites, Dasciocrinus, Cymbiocrinus, Aphelecrinus, Ampelocrinus, Phanocrinus, Eupachycrinus, and Pterotocrinus also are revised. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study has taken many years to complete, and the authors have received considerable help from many people throughout this period. We will not be able to list all these people here, but we would especially like to thank Donald C. Haney, State Geologist and Di- rector, Kentucky Geological Survey, for the use of his staff in later stages of manuscript preparation and drafting. We would also like to thank the staff of the Kentucky Geological Survey, especially Norma Reyn- olds, who typed and retyped our complex manuscripts; Roger Potts, Chief Cartographic Illustrator, and Lynn Guindon and Robert Holladay, draftspersons, who did an excellent job of drafting many of our figures; and Don Hutcheson, Editor, and Margaret Smath, Assis- tant Editor, who spent considerable time editing the manuscript and putting our awkward phrases into ac- ceptable English. We thank Stephen Greb for his ex- cellent redrafting of Text-figures 11-18 and 20 during the last stages of manuscript preparation. We also wish to thank the staff of the Field Museum, Chicago, IL; Lois Campbell, Geology Dept., Univer- sity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY; Alan Horowitz, Ge- ology Dept., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; and Daniel Blake, Geology Dept., University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Urbana, IL; for lending us spec- imens. We would like to thank Frederick Collier, Jann Thompson, and Mary Lawson of the U. S. National Museum for allowing us access to the Springer Collec- tion and for the use of their photographic equipment. ! Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, 228 Min- ing and Mineral Resources Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0056, U.S.A. ? Department of Geology, University of Kentucky, Bowman Hall, Lexington, KY 40506, U.S.A. We would also like to thank Professor Z. L. Lipchinsky of Berea College, who showed to us the Morrill locality and donated a fine specimen of Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler, 1936) to the collection at the University of Kentucky. We wish to warmly thank Dr. and Mrs. John Trodahl of Alexandria, Virginia, who invited us, almost total strangers, to stay with them while we visited the Na- tional Museum, and who treated us with great hospi- tality and enthusiastic support. We would also like to thank peer reviewers D. Brad- ford Macurda, N. Gary Lane, Alan S. Horowitz, and the late Harrell L. Strimple for their helpful criticism, suggestions, and insights. We thank Peter Hoover, Di- rector and Publications Editor at the Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, NY, for his work and patience with this manuscript. We wish to thank our wives and families for their understanding of the long hours we spent working on the manuscript. We wish to thank President and former actor R. Reagan for military assistance, especially in the critical fieldwork phase of this study. We would also like to thank Miss Candy Lamour, at the Red Lion Lounge, for many late night hours helping to adjust our eyesight, and also the entire staff of the Tokyo Health Spa for rubbing out the kinks and hard spots in this study. We also wish to thank Jack Daniels for his help in visu- alizing the life of crinoids from their own point of view. INTRODUCTION Well-preserved, diverse fossil echinoderms have been found in the Middle Chesterian (late Visean; Hom- bergian) rocks of south-central Kentucky (Text-fig. 1) since the late 1800's. The echinoderm fossils from this area were known throughout the paleontological world during the late 1800's and early 1900's, and many of these specimens now reside in museums in the United States and Europe. Perhaps the most famous locality in this area is Sloans Valley in Pulaski County (Text- fig. 1). Specimens from this locality were collected or described by many prominent American paleontolo- gists including Wetherby (18792, 18795, 1881), Miller (1879), Miller and Gurley (1895, 1896), Wachsmuth and Springer (1880), Ulrich (1905, 1918), Wood (1909), Butts (1918, 1922), Springer (1920, 1926), Weller (1920), Sutton (1934), Kirk (1937, 1940a, 1942a, 1942b, 19446), Sutton and Winkler (1940), and Moore and Laudon (1943, 1944). Lists of echinoderms from Sloans Valley were compiled by Bassler and Moodey (1943). More recently, Horowitz (1965) and Strimple and Horowitz (1975) described fossils from the same area. Locality descriptions in the above studies suggest that many of the primary types of “Glen Dean" fossils or those labelled “Pulaski County, Kentucky" were collected from this site. Most of these fossils were col- lected from spoil piles of shale and limestone that were removed to make the Sloans Valley railroad tunnel, part of the old Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Texas Pacific Railroad (Macfarlane, 1890), later known as the Cincinnati-Southern Railroad System (Butts, 1922). Thus, the locality was accessible by train, which was boarded in Cincinnati and stopped near the collecting locality at the Sloans Valley station (Macfarlane, 1890). According to Springer (1920), the Sloans Valley local- ity was initially discovered by Wetherby and later re- discovered by Wachsmuth. Our field work revealed six additional localities (Text- fig. 1) that yielded prolific echinoderm faunas. Posi- tions of the collecting localities and descriptions of the sections at each are given in Appendix 2. Together, these localities have yielded more than 700 well-pre- served specimens representing approximately 50 dif- ferent species from six echinoderm classes. Perhaps an equal number of older specimens reside in museums. Crinoids, blastoids, echinoids, edrioasteroids, ophiu- roids, and asteroids are represented. The diverse fauna also includes brachiopods, bryozoans, pelecypods, gas- tropods, rugose corals, conularids, ostracods, foramin- ifers, fish remains, and trace fossils. The excellent ex- posures, prolific faunas, and extraordinary preservation provide an unparalleled opportunity to study in greater detail the so-called Sloans Valley echinoderm fauna, its stratigraphic occurrence, and its paleoecologic and paleoenvironmental framework. Hence, it is the pur- pose of this study to describe the systematic paleon- tology of the echinoderm fauna, including both new and old forms, as well as its stratigraphic occurrence and probable paleoecology. BULLETIN 330 ABBREVIATIONS OF REPOSITORIES Repositories that supplied specimens examined in this study are represented in the text by the following abbreviations: IU: Geology Department, Bloomington, IN, U.S.A. UC: Field Museum, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. UK: Geology Department, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, U.S.A. USNM: Springer Collection, United States National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institu- tion, Washington, DC, U.S.A. UI-X: Geology Department, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Urbana, IL, U.S.A. Indiana University, LINCOLN / \ I o ROCKCASTLE | JACKSON \ | / a Mt. Vernon б, \ 73 pl NU. 1 / ~ <> x у f М D S \ ^ ~ ye А Ра ~ ЊЕ за ње“ á җе “ыг! у us. 8 s o ds z ~ 5 РО cet iue е ма 5 PULASKI ў ма”: опдоп Р (^5 N аа аа” б, ^ 4i 5 (2 КОЛАЦ Ree Somerset г) < G су ~ y Ош ne Bir. Ра а ^ С] Corbin «шй è © loans | и `- БА К " \ КА > | \ Ho i M9 ts 5km bed 10 5 о 5mi а Collecting Localities sec Southern Railroad мене Old Cincinnati-Southern Railroad Bed Text-figure 1.—Map showing the location of the seven echino- derm-collection sites in the lower part of the Pennington Formation of south-central Kentucky. North ofthe heavy dotted line carbonates immediately below the Pennington are included in the Glen Dean Member of the Newman Limestone; south of the line, stratigraph- ically-equivalent carbonates are included in the Bangor Limestone. See Appendices 1 and 2 for descriptions of collecting localities. (1) Cincinnati-Southern Railroad cut (old bed); (2) Southern Railroad cut (new bed); (3) Strunk Quarry; (4) Somerset Stone Company Quar- ry; (5) Laurel County Quarry; (6) Clover Bottom; (7) Morrill. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN Я STRATIGRAPHY In the early literature, the rocks from which the Sloans Valley echinoderms come were classified as part of the Kaskaskia Group. Ulrich (1905), however, placed them in the lower part of the Birdsville Formation. After the Chesterian rocks in the Illinois Basin were described, the nomenclature from that area was introduced into central and eastern Kentucky, where rocks at the ho- rizon of the Sloans Valley member were included with- in the Glen Dean Limestone of the upper Middle Ches- terian Series (Hombergian) (Text-fig. 2). The stratigraphic units discussed in this paper are the Hardinsburg Member (Hartselle Shale), Glen Dean Member (Bangor Limestone), and the two lowermost informally-named members of the Pennington For- mation (Text-fig. 2). During the U. S. Geological Sur- vey-Kentucky Geological Survey joint geologic map- ping program, the Illinois Basin nomenclature [Hardinsburg and Glen Dean members] was replaced in south-central Kentucky as far north as Pulaski County (Text-fig. 1) by terms carried northward from Tennessee [Hartselle Shale and Bangor Limestone] (Lewis and Thaden, 1965). The Hardinsburg Shale Member of the Newman Limestone south of Pulaski County became the Hartselle Shale or Sandstone whereas the Glen Dean Member of the Newman Lime- stone became the Bangor Limestone to the south (Text- fig. 2). Both nomenclatures are used in the study area, but in the interest of simplicity, and because most workers are more likely to be familiar with the older Illinois Basin terminology, we have chosen to use it in this study. The term “Pennington”, however, is still used for the mixed carbonate-clastic sequence that overlies the Glen Dean. The nature of the boundary between the Glen Dean and the Pennington has been unclear for some time. In the older literature (e. g., Butts, 1922), the Glen Dean Limestone was divided into a lower massive limestone unit and an upper unit of interbed- ded limestone and shale called the *upper Glen Dean" (Text-fig. 2). Most of the echinoderms ascribed to the Glen Dean in the earlier literature were actually col- lected from the “upper Glen Dean". In parts of north- eastern Kentucky, this interbedded unit also has been mapped as part of the shale member (Englund and Windolph, 1975) or as the upper member of the New- man Limestone (Englund, 1976), in an attempt to cor- relate these units with similar lithologies in the New- man Limestone outcrop belt on Pine Mountain in eastern Kentucky (see Englund, Roen, and DeLaney, 1964). On most ofthe U. S. Geological Survey geologic quadrangle maps in east- and south-central Kentucky, however, the interbedded shales and carbonates of the "upper Glen Dean" were mapped as the basal part of TYPE SECTION BUTTS, 1922 CURRENT USAGE Mississippi Eastern Northeastern and South-Central River Valley Kentucky East-Central Kentucky Kentucky д Tar Springs Pennington Clastic == Dolostone Sandstone Fortidfióh 5 2 member 25 member е9 смесе = Е ах] c Е]Сауез с 5| Sloans Valley ји Upper o 9| Ss. Lower cru member Glen Dean = Ё Glen Dean а. dark Formation Фо shale mbr, ч | а t5 с Ф sé Пелин Малае Glen Dean Bangor Limestone Glen Dean =Е Member So 97 ФЕ Hardinsburg Golconda Shale z= Hardinsburg Hartselle Shale Formation Member /, Text-figure 2.—Approximate chronostratigraphic correlation of Middle Chesterian rocks in the study area and adjoining regions with rocks in the Chesterian type section from the Mississippi River Valley. MISSISSIPPIAN- PENNSYLVANIA Unconformity BULLETIN 330 М ATL FA пыл ска ша ата | a ST нара ана иш, "ткт BREATHITT FORMATION ze & Exposure [GV UESV SERV UC ZEE EFS surfaces У ранага а jr 20 re ds o Е feet 4r 10 [5 GE Vertical Scale Upper shale member FORMATION [Limestone U member Dolostone PENNINGTON member Sloans Valley member Bangor Ls. / Glen Dean Member L[Hartselle Sh./ | MORROWAN CHESTERIAN PENNSYLVANIAN | MISSISSIPPIAN Text-figure 3. — Reference section for the Sloans Valley member, Pulaski County, Kentucky. See Text-figure 1 and Appendices 1 and 2 for location and detailed descriptions. Hardinsburg Mbr. cr n Rippling Vertical burrows Fossils Fenestral Fabric Concretionary vug ы Соа! 2 Cross- bedding Covered interval Г) Exposure surface Sandstone Dolomitic siltstone | Siltstone І cotcisittite Calcilutite (mudstone) EN Calcarenite БИРД Silty ИЛ dolostone 7 A Calcareous A dolostone ZG Dolostone Sandy ==) shale == Dark gray and black shale Red and/or green shale > 7| Dolomitic 7:2? | shale [IO ] Oólitic ie] | limestone MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 9 the Pennington Formation, a practice that we continue here. Most of the Pennington Formation is composed of sparsely fossiliferous, variegated brown, green, and maroon shales, interbedded with lenses of sandstone and siltstone in the upper part and with layers of do- lostone and limestone in the lower part. In contrast, the *upper Glen Dean", or lowermost part of the Pen- nington Formation in the study area, consists of highly fossiliferous, interbedded shales and limestones. Be- cause of difficulties in correlating the Newman, Pen- nington, and Glen Dean with their namesakes in their type areas, these names recently have been revised to Slade Formation, Paragon Formation, and Poppin Rock Member, respectively, in northeastern and east- central Kentucky (Ettensohn et al., 1984). This study deals with echinoderms from the “upper Glen Dean" or lowermost part of the Pennington For- mation. The use of either of these stratigraphic terms in south-central Kentucky is awkward and outdated. Therefore, we informally designate the fossiliferous in- terbedded shales and limestones of the lower Pen- nington Formation as the “Sloans Valley member of the Pennington Formation" (Text-fig. 2). A reference section for the Sloans Valley member and adjacent units is provided in Text-figure 3 and is described in detail in Appendix 1. This is a composite section based on roadcuts on U. S. Highway 27 between Sloans Val- ley and Dixie Bend Road, near the famous Sloans Val- ley collecting locality in the Burnside Quadrangle, Pu- laski County, Kentucky (Carter-coordinate location 800 ft. FEL x 1800 ft. FSL, 18-F-60).5 Strimple and Horowitz (1975) suggested that the cri- noid-bearing rocks in what we have defined as the Sloans Valley member are equivalent to rocks mapped with the Tar Springs Formation in Indiana. This is not meant to imply any biostratigraphic correlation with the type Tar Springs, but merely reflects Indiana Geo- logical Survey rock-stratigraphic terminology. The Sloans Valley member and similar rocks in Indiana yielded fossils described as “Glen Dean" in age by Perry and Horowitz (1963) and subsequently cited in Horowitz and Strimple (1974). Moreover, palynolog- ical and conodont work by Ettensohn and Peppers (1979) and Ettensohn and Bliefnick (1982) indicates that lateral equivalents of the Sloans Valley member and lower dolostone member of the Pennington For- mation in northeastern Kentucky (Text-fig. 2) are Mid- dle Chesterian, Glen Dean time-equivalents. Hence, the massive limestones of the Glen Dean Member in the study area (the Bangor Limestone ofeast- and south- central Kentucky) are probably correlative only with lower parts of the type Glen Dean; whereas the Sloans 3 the Carter-coordinate system is an alpha-numeric grid used for location within Kentucky, similar to the township and range system used elsewhere. Valley member and lower parts of the dolostone mem- ber are apparently correlative with upper parts of the type Glen Dean (Text-fig. 2). However, not even the massive limestones of the Glen Dean appear to be wholly correlative along the outcrop belt, for these limestones thicken southward at the expense of the Pennington, suggesting that the top of the Glen Dean (Bangor) becomes younger southward along the out- crop belt (Text-fig. 2). Limited biostratigraphic evi- dence from a core just south of the Kentucky—Ten- nessee boundary along strike with the outcrop belt supports this interpretation (Horowitz et al., 1979, pp. 212, 215, and 217). DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS The Glen Dean Member of the Newman Limestone and the Sloans Valley member of the Pennington For- mation are interpreted to be parts of a westwardly prograding tidal coastline (Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1979; Text-fig. 4). The progradational sequence in- cludes the upper parts of the Hardinsburg Member of the Newman Limestone and the dolostone member of the Pennington Formation (Text-figs. 4—6). Deposi- tional environments were inferred from the use of thin- section petrography, sedimentary structures, strati- graphic position, and paleontology. The predominance of fine-grained sediments (shale, calcilutite) in the Hardinsburg Member throughout the study area suggests open-marine deposition in quiet conditions well below wave base (Ettensohn, 1977, 1980; Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1979). Theoverlying Glen Dean Member is a massive, cross- bedded, skeletal calcarenite that is locally oolitic. The unit is typically a crinoidal calcirudite or calcarenite, but occasionally 1s made up of calcisiltite and fossil- iferous calcilutite. Many beds are dolomitic. Chert nodules and bands, as well as vugs of dolomite and calcite, also occur. Individual beds contain a sparse, thick-shelled fauna, reflecting high-energy conditions. Bedding planes and thin, overlying shale partings, how- ever, may exhibit a more abundant and diverse fauna, commonly including Archimedes spp. and productids. Except for Agassizocrinus Owen and Shumard, 18522, a stemless crinoid adapted to high-energy conditions (Ettensohn, 1975b), crinoids are rarely found in the massive Glen Dean Member. The Glen Dean Member is interpreted to represent deposition on a shallow, high-energy carbonate sand belt of migrating shoals at or near wave base (Ettensohn, 1977; Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1979; Text-figs. 4—6). Conditions on the sand belt were probably too agitated to support a diverse, prolific fauna except during relatively quiet periods and in quiet, deeper depressions on the sand belt. The best evidence for the periodic presence of quiet areas on the sand belt is the shale breaks that occur locally 10 BULLETIN 330 throughout the Glen Dean Member. Fossils on bedding plane surfaces below these shales apparently reflect near- life assemblages of sessile filter feeders that were sud- denly buried by clay and silt. The uppermost parts of the Glen Dean Member be- come more thinly bedded and contain more argilla- ceous carbonates and shale interbeds. Locally, this part ofthe Glen Dean Member intertongues with the Sloans Valley member. Whole fossils become more numerous on the upper surfaces of these thinner beds and in the intervening shales. These beds yielded the most fossils at the Laurel County locality (Text-fig. 1, loc. 5), where numerous specimens of Archimedes Owen, 1838, fe- nestellids, partial and complete crinoid crowns, echi- noids, edrioasteroids, and delicate ramose bryozoans were found. The uppermost beds are dolomitic mud- stones and contained many specimens of Archimedes, fenestellids, crinoid stems and plates, brachiopods, and delicate ramose bryozoans. The general fining-upward nature of the Glen Dean Member and the upward in- crease in diversity reflect deposition in somewhat deep- er, protected, back-sand belt environments transitional between the Glen Dean sand belt and a deeper, shore- ward Pennington lagoon (Text-figs. 4, 6). Тће Sloans Valley member ofthe Pennington, which overlies and intertongues with the Glen Dean Member, consists largely of dark-gray, organic-rich shale with interbedded lenses and shoal-like bodies of calcarenite. The calcarenite bodies may be dolomitic, fossiliferous, or arenaceous. The arenaceous beds are most common at the Laurel County Quarry locality (Text-fig. 1, loc. 5). Lenses of calcirudite composed of intraclasts, phos- phatic pebbles, or fragmented fossils occur locally. Some of these lenses and bodies are cross-bedded. Shale in the Sloans Valley member 15 generally one of three types. А dark-gray, organic-rich, clayey shale is the most abundant. Although this shale is not always fossiliferous, fossils that do occur are most commonly Waverly Arch Apical Island Text-figure 4.— Reconstruction of Late Chesterian depositional environments in the study area. Interpretive diagram of major depositional environments along a late Middle to early Late Chesterian prograding tidal shoreline in central Kentucky shows the location of the study area (from Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1979). i Kentucky River TEK © T Zone С ` /rvine- Paints Creek - пара Shoals 2н 5 УУ Marsh- Swamps Ly Carter Caves Ss. | | | MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 11 Breathitt Deltaic : stone, 15 the least common; it is known only from the Formations т; delicate fenestellid bryozoans, productid brachiopods, Е Formation © Depositional |Regional and pectinid pelecypods. The second most abundant 5 гуйи: 2 ЕПЇЙӨЙЙТӨПБӨ - Event shale type is blue-gray, calcareous, and fossiliferous. | ы = Most of the echinoderm fossils studied herein were collected from these calcareous shales or interbedded | zz T calcarenite lenses. The third type, a sandy to silty shale | 25 апа Shoal-Water containing lenses or flaser beds of calcareous sand- $ Laurel County Quarry locality (Text-fig. 1, loc. 5). The о Sic Еш То Зара $ | pes Laurel County Quarry also yielded an unusual bed | | Е 5 composed of arenaceous calcirudite with rip-up clasts Upper = o ia r r OEC x Я | S ые Clastic Tidal На: | 2 a (up to 10 cm in diameter) of micritic limestone con | = RE and Lagoonal taining phosphate nodules, as well as phosphatized gas- | | Е і tropods, cephalopods, and bryozoan fragments. This | н e БЕБЕ ЕАБа5ІБПу bed apparently represents a high-energy (storm?) event P Open Marine Trans- і 0 : = | [Limestone трг Shen Poner followed by a period of slow sedimentation. а |= 5 The Sloans Valley member at all localities contains Q с Dolostone Carbonate o У ў d Н Н : | as аа Tidal Віга Hw evidence of periodic agitation and currents. Evidence | 2 5 S includes large transported lithoclasts, major cross-bed- Ф Sloans Maley овна СЕЗ ding in some limestone and sandstone beds, flaser bed- | = Pomer 5» ding, interference ripples, and beds consisting almost | o І у Т | 5 pd ној Carbonate Я 6 entirely of worn and abraded fossil and phosphate- | S| Limestone) Sand Belt mic nodule debris. Some irregular masses (pseudonodules) | - а Р Я а | Е рат ва Ooh of contorted biocalcarenite (15—30 cm thick) within = MORES SH" ботын = the shales (Text-fig. 7), contain whole crinoids in an | E (Hartselle irregularly-swirled pattern throughout the nodular | Ф] Sandstone) 2 mass. They probably represent storm-transported | Text-figure 5.— Lithologic column for the studied sequence showing unit names and inferred depositional environments. The Sloans Valley | ) and Glen Dean members, which contain the studied echinoderms, are part of a мечу ага у-ргоргаф пр nearshore environmental continuum shown schematically in Text-figure 6. Open cg тоол ае | Carbonate ; | Маг- | Tid ai Бат tmc seme Beli Intertidal $1 2007 E p * "Ел УУ "i SSNM—-/ (7 E ар ў њу У ys ү $y "^n NUN 24 [e 3 | AE ка а чу | NVON | CN Woo _/ Nias X АИ NM WE ; ue | Ag * я, SE аа а | CC | — 8 ON UN e | IRS IRE d To. ^ ESAN M Y? d OW ae | \ dl аа | Е | NS у 0 "E М YA. A NN NN N її y үй ў wl ANN Ñ ss ong * | | NN \ 5 | VN Sloans © | N Valley = | \ mbr. Mg S| Glen Dean- á а | эсш o Brachiopods рай | кат Spo Я " ° | ў 9 Archimedes lastoids Zu ON US = ye et 9 Edroasteroids | Text-figure 6. — Environmental reconstruction of the late Middle and early Late Chesterian progradational continuum represented by the | sequence of units from the Hartselle-Hardinsburg through the dolostone member of the Pennington Formation in south-central Kentucky. 12 BULLETIN 330 masses of semi-lithified sediment dumped with their epifauna into adjacent quiet basins (Ettensohn and Chesnut, 198 5а). The localized layers containing phos- phate nodules may also indicate the periodic incursion of upwelling currents into shallow Sloans Valley en- vironments from deeper seaward environments during periods of little sedimentation. Тће Sloans Valley member generally represents de- position in intermittently quiet, shallow, protected la- goonal waters behind a higher energy sand-belt or shoal environment; the sand belt or shoal is represented by the underlying Glen Dean Member (Ettensohn, 1977, 1980; Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1979; Text-figs. 4—6). Deposition of argillaceous and calcareous muds ap- parently dominated in this quiet-water environment, but storms, waves, and high tides also seem to have influenced it. These agents apparently transported coarser, bioclastic debris from the adjacent sand belt into the lagoonal environment in the form of migrating dunes, shoals, spillover lobes, and ripped-up chunks of semi-lithified sediment. Some of these bodies of bioclastic debris can actually be traced back into the Glen Dean from which they originated as spillover lobes (Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1985a). The lobes and dunes formed small shoals in the lagoon, which were colonized by the echinoderms [principally crinoids and blastoids] (Text-fig. 8). The shoals of bioclastic debris Text-figure 7.— Irregularly shaped, echinoderm-bearing pseudon- odule of skeletal sand within dark basinal shales of the Sloans Valley member at locality 2 (see Text-fig. 1). Contorted bedding and fossils within the nodules and irregularly truncated and deformed shale beds below suggest that semi-lithified parts of shoals and their epi- fauna were ripped up and dumped onto basinal muds during storms. The pseudonodules are restricted to specific horizons within the Sloans Valley member. not only provided the firm substrates needed by stemmed echinoderms, but also provided elevation into or near a zone of dominantly horizontal water move- ment, needed by most suspension-feeding echino- derms (Text-fig. 9). Colonization by the stemmed echi- noderms further enhanced the buildup of the shoal through baffling and the addition of ossicles, and cre- ated many new niches for other echinoderms and in- vertebrates. Other fauna such as fenestellid and ramose bryozoans, brachiopods, corals, gastropods, and pe- lecypods lived on or within the muds of the quiet, deeper intervening basinal areas. The overlying dolostone member of the Pennington 15 composed largely of dolomitic mudstones interbed- ded with shales, as well as minor oolitic and bioclastic calcarenites and pelletal mudstones. This member ex- hibits abundant laminae; subaerial exposure features; horizontal and vertical burrows; nodules containing calcite, dolomite, celestite, and strontianite; and a very sparse fauna. It is interpreted to represent deposition in an intertidal to supratidal environment very near the shore (Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1979; Text-figs. 4, 6). The above units represent parts of an extensive tidal shoreline that seems to have dominated eastern Ken- tucky (Text-fig. 4) during the late Middle and early Late Chesterian. Tidal-flat environments apparently prograded westwardly and reflect the beginning of ma- Text-figure 8.— Ten-meter segment of a calcarenitic shoal body pinching out southeasterly into dark basinal shales of the Sloans Valley member at locality 2 (see Text-fig. 1). Note cross-bedding dipping southeasterly above senior author's head. Most echinoderms from the Sloans Valley member are found on top of or closely as- sociated with shoal-bodies such as this. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 13 jor regional regression, which continued throughout the remainder of the Paleozoic. Paleocurrent studies in rocks regarded by the authors to be Pennington (Ferm et al., 1971; Ettensohn, 1975a, Short, 1978) suggest a northern source for clastics in the lower Pennington Formation. The Carter Caves Sandstone (Text-fig. 4), partially equivalent to the lower dark shale and clastic members of the Pennington Formation to the north (Text-fig. 2), may represent such a source. This linear, channel sandstone has been variously interpreted to be a tidal delta (Englund and Windolph, 1971), a tidal channel (Ettensohn, 1975a, 1980), and a distributary channel (Short, 1978). Any clastic sediments derived from this channel would have been transported farther south and reworked onto the clastic tidal flats (Text- fig. 4), represented by the clastic member of the Pen- nington Formation to the north (Text-fig. 2). Coastal areas near the Waverly Arch apical island and base- ment fault zone (see Ettensohn, 1980, 1981) were ap- parently slightly higher than other parts of the tidal coastline and supported local paralic marshes, repre- sented by thin coals in the Pennington Formation. Pen- nington coals in east-central Kentucky are restricted to the clastic member and occur only on and near structural features (Ettensohn and Peppers, 1979; Text- fig. 4). The clastic member of the Pennington Formation (Text-fig. 2) is characterized by a fining-upward clastic sequence with numerous tidal features (Ettensohn, 1975a, 1977, 1980) as far south as Rockcastle County, Kentucky (Text-fig. 1). This apparently was as far south as the coarser clastics were transported. South of this point, carbonate muds, silts, and sands replaced clastic sediments on the tidal flats (Text-fig. 4). Locally, evap- Вазта! Area Shoal ———- с сиггел? — OD |ф (0 % | сплав | Blastoid З Edrioasteroid edes Asteroid or а X Echinoid A Ophiuroid Calcarenite orites may have been deposited (Frazier, 1975). Car- bonate sedimentation in this area apparently out- stripped any clastic influx into the area. The dominance of carbonate sedimentation is also reflected in the greater abundance of carbonates and skeleton-produc- ing organisms found in the Sloans Valley member, compared with its northern equivalent, the lower dark shale member (Text-fig. 2). Echinoderms, for example, are generally rare in the lower dark shale member. Chesterian tidal-flat deposition in eastern Kentucky was abruptly ended by renewed transgression, repre- sented by the limestone member of the Pennington Formation (Text-fig. 5). The limestone member is a thin but persistent, argillaceous, oolitic to bioclastic calcarenite. The limestone is highly fossiliferous and represents a shallow open-marine to shoaling environ- ment. The overlying upper shale member (Text-fig. 5) con- sists predominantly of maroon and green silty shales with interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and thin, brec- ciated dolostones. Mudcracks occur in some of the dolostones, whereas ripple marks and flaser beds are common in the siltstones. The shales contain abundant macerated plant debris and evidence of bioturbation, but invertebrate fossils are rare. The member is inter- preted to represent the return of extensive tidal mud flats and shallow coastal lagoons, but this time the tidal flats were dominated by clastic muds, and there was only local accumulation of carbonate mud. Brecciation in these carbonates apparently represents subaerial ex- posure and vadose diagenesis (Fisher, 1981). Addi- tional information on the stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Pennington Formation can be found in Ettensohn and Chesnut (1985b). Basinal Area i current Ramose Archimedes and “й Brachiopod Bryozoan other Fenestrates Dark Shales Text-figure 9. — Schematic reconstruction of carbonate shoals and nearby muddy basinal areas in the Sloans Valley lagoon showing inferred stratification of suspension feeders and relative positions of common organisms on and near shoals. 14 BULLETIN 330 PALEOECOLOGY INTRODUCTION Most of the echinoderms and associated fauna from the Glen Dean and the lower Pennington Formation do not represent new discoveries. They are abundant and widespread in Chesterian rocks throughout the east-central United States. Most of the work to date has dealt with their systematics, and few ecologic in- terpretations have been made. This is largely the result of poor preservation, poor outcrop conditions, bad luck (few areas with such large colonies have been found), and the fact that modern concepts of echinoderm ecol- ogy had not yet been elucidated. In the Sloans Valley area, the abundance of specimens, excellent preser- vation, and a number of fresh exposures in quarries, roadcuts, and railroad cuts (Text-fig. 1) make such a comprehensive paleoecological analysis possible. Al- though many of the details are still not known, the excellent preservation of specimens, their relationship to each other, and the unusual morphological features of many species provide clues to their paleoecologic relationships. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The Sloans Valley lagoon contained many slightly elevated shoals on which skeletal sands were deposited, and intervening basinal areas in which carbonate and argillaceous muds predominated (Text-fig. 9). Al- though the shoals were higher than the basinal areas, a mud matrix observed in thin-sections of most shoal calcarenites indicates the ineffectiveness of winnowing and suggests that the shoals were generally below nor- mal wave base, but not necessarily below tidal range and storm-wave base. The Sloans Valley shoal calcarenites are composed primarily of pelmatozoan sands. Many of the shoals probably originated as spillover lobes from the seaward Glen Dean sand belt or from local shoals (Text-fig. 6). During storms and high tides, lobes of skeletal sand were transported shoreward from the sand belt, and existing shoal sands were transported onto lagoonal muds. Some of the larger shoal bodies (Text-fig. 8) appear to represent numerous accretionary events or abandoned tidal deltas; smaller limestone lenses with only a single layer of skeletal debris represent a single episode of sand transportation. The shoal bodies range in length from approximately 3 m to at least 160 m and exhibit thicknesses up to 4 m. Some of the smaller calcarenite lenses are only a few meters long and a few centimeters thick (Ettensohn and Chesnut, 1985a, fig. 8). Once agitation decreased to the point that the trans- ported sands became stable, these sands formed a firm substrate that was easily colonized and stabilized by sessile benthos. Addition of skeletal parts from dead organisms contributed to the upward growth of each shoal. The communities on the shoals were dominated by stemmed crinoids and blastoids, probably because the shoals provided firm substrates for attachment and elevated positions that provided the crinoids access to feeding currents higher in the water column (Text-fig. 9). Most modern crinoids live in areas of dominantly horizontal water movement, and feed with their arms arrayed into filtration fans oriented perpendicular to water movement (Macurda and Meyer, 1974). The abundance of crinoids on the Sloans Valley shoals, as well as evidence of horizontal water movement already discussed, suggest that these crinoids lived on shoals where water movement similarly facilitated food cap- ture. The intervening basinal areas were characterized by lower energy and supported a fauna that lived closer to the substrate. Most of the fauna found in the shales are usually associated with thin lenses of skeletal debris that apparently provided relatively firm substrates. Tracks and trails are everywhere common in the Sloans Valley member, and bioturbation is present in many of the limestones. Bioturbation also may have formed some of the marls found in the basinal facies, although storm mixing cannot be overlooked; the marls consist of echinoderm ossicles in a dark muddy matrix. Traces of bioturbation are generally absent in the dark shales, as is most evidence of infauna. This indicates that conditions below the surface were too reducing to sup- port much infauna, although bottom circulation and oxygenation were sufficient to support a diverse and abundant epifauna on or above the sediment—water interface. Both shoal and basinal lithologies exhibit an in- creased faunal diversity and abundance in the Sloans Valley member compared with the underlying Glen Dean Member and the overlying dolostone member. We believe that this discrepancy can be best explained in terms of the following environmental parameters: 1. The Sloans Valley member represents a protected open-lagoonal environment shoreward of the Glen Dean sand belt (Text-figs. 4, 5). The deeper, pro- tected waters behind the sand belt created more stable environments, which would have promoted greater populations and diversity (Heckel, 1972); 2. More species were capable of living in the Sloans Valley environment because a greater variety of niches were available. The shoals and intervening basinal areas in the lagoon not only offered a num- ber of substrate types, but also access to various energy levels. Most of the pelmatozoans seem to have colonized the shoals because of their firm sub- strates and access to currents; and MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 15 3. The lagoonal environments were ideally situated to receive nutrients from both seaward and landward sources (Text-figs. 4, 5). Wave- and tide-generated currents could have carried open-marine plankton or dissolved nutrients across the sand belt or through tidal channels into the lagoon. Localized phosphate accumulations suggest at least periodic incursions of upwelling currents carrying phosphate and other dissolved nutrients from deeper, seaward waters. Land-derived nutrients, on the other hand, could have debouched directly into the lagoon. Finely ma- cerated plant debris, abundant palynomorphs, and fresh-water algae (Botryococcus Kützing, 1849, and charophytes) (Ettensohn, 1975a; Ettensohn and Peppers, 1979) strongly indicate a landward source. The presence of organic debris іп these lagoonal environments is indicated by the dark, organic-rich nature of the shales in the Sloans Valley member. TAPHONOMY Excellent preservation of fauna is present in the dark, organic-rich shales deposited in the basinal areas. These fissile, dark shales commonly contain a remarkably- preserved fauna of fenestrate bryozoans, pectenids, brachiopods, and other invertebrates. The fissile nature of the shale, the organic content, and the lack of bio- turbation suggest that preservation is probably due to anoxic conditions just below the sediment—water in- terface. The preserved assemblages probably approx- imate the benthic make-up of the original basinal com- munities, because major transportation was not likely in this quiet-water environment. Although some complete crinoid calyxes and ed- rioasteroids have been found in shales adjacent to the calcarenite bodies, most of the echinoderms, particu- larly crinoids, occur on the upper surfaces of calcar- enite bodies and lenses and exhibit detailed preser- vation; these surfaces are always overlain by shale. Because echinoderms are easily disarticulated after death, the well-preserved assemblages in the Sloans Valley were not transported far and almost certainly lived on the shoals. Hence, the preserved assemblages are thought to reflect closely the nature of the benthic populations in the original shoal communities. Long stem segments with attached calyxes and the- cae are commonly preserved in the Sloans Valley mem- ber, as are the arms, pinnules, and wing plates of var- ious crinoids and the brachioles and summit plates of blastoids. Brachiopod and pelecypod valves are artic- ulated and usually crushed, both of which suggest rapid burial, and continuous growth series are present for many taxa. Detailed preservation of this quality requires rapid burial following minimal post-mortem transportation. The bedding planes on which these well-preserved echinoderms occur are invariably overlain by shale. Some of the shoal sequences are composed almost wholly of calcarenite layers alternating with thin shales, and the communities that developed on the calcarenite surfaces were repeatedly buried by sudden influxes of argillaceous sediment. The crinoids and blastoids in these communities are all preserved without holdfasts. Crinoid and blastoid stems apparently were broken suddenly, moved a short distance, and buried in mud. We suggest that this oc- curred during storms that churned the bottom of the lagoon, placing great amounts of mud into suspension. During this turbulence, the crinoids and blastoids were probably flung about violently until their stems broke; then calyxes with attached stems were moved a short distance and dropped on the bottom. As the storms subsided, suspended muds slowly settled and buried the devastated communities. Not only did the storms churn up muds from the lagoon itself, but they may have greatly increased sediment influx into the lagoon from nearby terrestrial sources. Although the storms may have ripped up stems and transported faunal elements for short distances, these events, no matter how damaging they might have been, were probably not the final cause of death. More likely, death resulted from the clogging of respiratory and food-gathering apparatus by the great fallout of sus- pended mud and silt that eventually buried the com- munities. The currents that had helped clean and pro- vide oxygen and nutrients to the pelmatozoans higher in the water column were not available on the bottom. Moreover, because the lagoonal environments were relatively close to terrestrial influence, sudden fresh- water influxes accompanying storms may have altered salinity long enough to cause death to the stenohaline echinoderms. Terrestrial plant fragments and paly- nomorphs, brackish-water algae, and fresh-water algae previously noted indicate that fresh water periodically entered the system. The storm hypothesis is also suggested by a unique preservational mode encountered in the Sloans Valley member. In a few horizons, large numbers of well- preserved echinoderms are found in muddy calcarenite pseudonodules present within the darker basinal shales (Text-fig. 7). These pseudonodules are composed of poorly-sorted calcarenites with contorted bedding and abundant shale intraclasts. Echinoderms occur ran- domly in these pseudonodules, and many crinoids and blastoids in the pseudonodules occur with stems and exhibit the same excellent preservation of delicate parts found elsewhere in the Sloans Valley member. The stems and crowns may be partially wrapped around these pseudonodules, and many appear to have been rolled when examined in cross-section. We suggest that 16 BULLETIN 330 these pseudonodules represent small, semi-lithified portions of shoals that were scoured out during storms, transported a short distance with their echinoderm communities nearly intact, and then dumped or rolled into the soft muds of adjacent basinal areas (Text-fig. 6) (Ettensohn and Chesnut, 19852). SYNECOLOGY Communities Firm-Bottom Community.—Firm-bottom commu- nities are recognized on all the calcarenitic shoals (Text- Upper Level Medium Level 30 cm 150 cm fig. 9). These communities were dominated by stemmed crinoids and blastoids. Tholocrinus spinosus (Wood, 1909), Pterotocrinus acutus Wetherby, 1879a, and one of the species of Pentremites Say, 1820, seem to occur on nearly every shoal, but they cannot be said to dom- inate the shoals. Some shoals, however, apparently were dominated by only one or two species, because shoals exhibiting only blastoid thecae, or calyxes of Onycho- crinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895, and Pu- laskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz, 1965) have been found. Why these shoals were dominated by one or two species to the exclusion of all other echinoderms Low Level e D еә ў Agassizocrinus Aenigmocrinus Acrocrinus Acrocrinus? Lepidodiscus Aphelecrinus Ampelocrinus Culmicrinus? Pterotocrinus? Bicidiocrinus Anartiocrinus Eupachycrinus Ulrichidiscus Camptocrinus Aphelecrinus Onychocrinus Cymbiocrinus Culmicrinus Phacelocrinus? Hyrtanecrinus Cymbiocrinus Phanocrinus Lepidodiscus Dasciocrinus Pulaskicrinus Linocrinus Eupachycrinus Zeacrinites? Pentaramicrinus Onychocrinus Hitch-hikers Pentremites Pentremites Pterotocrinus robustus Ramulocrinus Phacelocrinus Strimplecrinus Phanocrinus Talsaroorinus Pulaskicrinus Тахосгіпиѕ Rhopocrinus Tholoorinus Tholocrinus Ulrichidiscus Wetherbyocrinus Zeacrinites Young Forms Hitch-hikers Text-figure 10.— Interpretation of feeding levels or tiers for major echinoderm genera in the study, based on the preserved lengths of stems or shape and orientation of thecae or calyxes. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 17 is uncertain. However, the shoals appear to be small, and these species may have arrived first and come to dominate the shoals before others arrived. The colo- nization of shoals may have been relatively random, depending largely on the availability of attachment sites. Most of the fauna on the shoals were suspension feeders, and it is likely that a vertical stratification or tiering (Ausich and Bottjer, 1982) of these feeders ex- isted (Text-fig. 10). Crinoids apparently had represen- tatives filing every tier, from semi-infaunal bottom- dwelling forms like Agassizocrinus Owen and Shu- mard, 1852a, and possibly Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1859, to forms like Onychocrinus pulas- kiensis that lived in the uppermost tiers (Text-Fig. 10). The highest, central parts of each shoal appear to have been inhabited largely by crinoids and blastoids, although fenestrate and ramose bryozoans seemed to have occupied much of the understory. The thinning margins of the shoals were inhabited by a fringing thicket of largely fenestrate bryozoans (Text-fig. 9), in- cluding Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839, Archimedes Owen, 1838, Polypora M'Coy, 1844b, Septopora Prout, 1860, and Lyroporella Simpson, 1895. Brachiopods, such as Composita subquadrata (Hall, 1858), Cleiothyridina sublamellosa (Hall, 1858), and Anthracospirifer cf. A. leidyi (Norwood and Pratten, 1855) were present lo- cally. Rare colonies of low (cap-shaped) and thickly- branched trepostome bryozoans also were noted on the calcarenite shoals, but probably occupied more open positions. The slightly deeper, less agitated shoal mar- gins provided firm substrates for attachment and some protection from turbulence; at the same time they pro- vided access to lower energy nutrient-bearing currents. Similar habitats have been suggested by McKinney (1978, 1979) and McKinney and Gault (1980) for Glen Dean and Pennington fenestrates. When turbulence reached the bryozoan fringe, the resulting fragmenta- tion apparently was important as a form of asexual colony proliferation for some fenestrates (McKinney, 1979, 1983). Sofi-Bottom Community.—In many parts of the Sloans Valley member, shoal calcarenites grade later- ally into lagoonal and basinal shales, calcisiltites, and marls. Most of the basinal lithologies are dark, sug- gesting the presence of abundant organic matter. Some of the basinal shales are essentially barren, and when fossils do occur, they are broad, flat brachiopods like Orthotetes kaskaskiensis (McChesney, 1860) or spi- nose productids like Diaphragmus cestriensis (Wor- then, 1860), whose morphological adaptations enabled them to live on soft substrates. Shell fragments that washed into the muds provided local islands of firm substrate that were quickly colonized by bryozoans or small encrusters like the worm Spirorbis Daudin, 1800, and the inarticulate brachiopod Crania Retzius, 1781. At locality 6, specimens of Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bas- sler, 1936), an edrioasteroid (Pl. 10, figs. 1—9), were found attached to bryozoan fronds and to a brachiopod in a thick shale sequence. At other localities, a thin layer of crinoid debris and brachiopod valves depos- ited on basinal muds was sufficient to provide a sub- strate for colonization by rhabdomesoid and fenestrate bryozoans. Substrate conditions appear to have largely controlled the development of lagoonal and basinal soft-bottom communities. Some of the lagoonal and basinal shales exhibit dense accumulations of almost-perfectly preserved rhabdo- mesoid and fenestrate bryozoans with interspersed brachiopods and pectenid pelecypods. Some of these shales are little more than laminae of compacted bryo- zoans. The nearly perfect preservation suggests that these bryozoans experienced little, ifany, post-mortem transportation; most were apparently buried in living position. We suggest that these communities were dominated by dense thickets of rhabdomesoid and fe- nestrate bryozoans. The bryozoans appear to have been so densely packed that they may have originally sup- ported each other in a dense and delicately interwoven framework (Text-fig. 9). Brachiopods, including Com- posita subquadrata (Hall, 1858), Cleiothyridina sub- lamellosa (Hall, 1858), Anthracospirifer cf. A. leidyi (Norwood and Pratten, 1855), and Diaphragmus ces- triensis (Worthen, 1860), apparently occupied small pockets in this lacework, living either on mats of dead bryozoan fronds or within the framework itself. The pectenid pelecypod Aviculopecten M’Coy, 1851, prob- ably was attached byssally to the bryozoan framework. The most common echinoderm in the lagoonal basin setting was Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday, 1860. Pterotocrinus depressus is interpreted to have possessed morphological adaptations that enabled it to live on soft substrates (Chesnut and Ettensohn, 1984). It is most common in silty calcareous muds and marls and is not present in the dense bryozoan accumula- tions. P. depressus apparently preferred slightly firmer, more open, basinal environments. At the classic Sloans Valley locality, many well-pre- served specimens of three cirri-bearing species, Ат- pelocrinus kaskaskiensis (Worthen, 1882) (РІ. 4, fig. 2; Pl. 12, fig. 8), Rhopocrinus spinosus Kirk, 1942a (PI. 3, fig. 11), and Camptocrinus сттјег (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) (РІ. 8, figs. 16, 18) were found in dark, calcareous mudstones. We suggest that these crinoids may have used their lower cirri as holdfasts or supports on the muddy substrates (Text-fig. 11) as do some modern stemmed crinoids (Macurda and Meyer, 1974). Other echinoderms found on former soft bottoms include Lepidesthes formosa Miller, 1879 (РІ. 11, figs. 1—3), and an unidentifiable ophiuroid (Pl. 12, fig. 3). 18 BuLLETIN 330 Lepidesthes formosa, however, was probably a deposit feeder (Text-fig. 12) and is found on firmer substrates as well. The ophiuroid was probably a scavenger and may have frequented all types of substrates. Nektic-Planktic Community.— Little is known about the nektic-planktic community, and in many cases we must infer which forms were present. Nonetheless, based on fossil teeth, spines, and dermal plates from the Glen Dean and Sloans Valley members, chondrich- thyan fish were very common elements of the nektic fauna and included Agassizodus St. John and Worthen, 1875, Acondylacanthus St. John and Worthen, 1875, Chomatodus Agassiz, 1843, **Cladodus", Cochliodus Agassiz, 1843, Copodus St. John and Worthen, 1883, Ctenacanthus Agassiz, 1843, Deltodus Newberry and Worthen, 1870, Petalodus Owen, 1840, Poecilodus Agassiz, 1843, Polyrhizodus M’Coy, 1848, Psammo- dus Agassiz, 1843, Psephodus Morris and Roberts, 1862, and Sandalodus Newberry and Worthen, 1866 (Chesnut, in preparation). Except for “Cladodus’’, a form genus with cusped teeth representing several gen- era, most of the fish had pavement-like teeth and prob- ably were durophagous, feeding on shelled inverte- brates. Echinoderms, especially stalked crinoids, were no doubt among their prey. Signor and Brett (1983, 1984) have suggested that increased spinosity, thecal- plate thickness, and thecal rigidity in mid-Paleozoic crinoids was the result of a rapid radiation of duro- phagous feeders, and Meyer (1983) has demonstrated that some modern fish prey on crinoids. Other nektic animals occurred here as well. Several different conodont animals probably existed in these waters, for abundant conodont faunas have been re- ported from the Glen Dean Limestone and lower Pen- nington Formation by Rexroad and Clarke (1960) and Ettensohn and Bliefnick (1982). The conodont animals were probably nektic or nekto-benthic predators feed- ing on small organisms in the water column. Even less evidence is available for the planktic com- munity. The only definite planktic form found was Conularia Sowerby, 1821, a possible scyphozoan, and as an adult, inferred to have been planktic. However, the presence of such an abundant and diverse suspen- sion-feeding fauna must indicate that microplankton was an abundant and fairly constant source of food. Because the Sloans Valley lagoon was apparently sup- plied with both terrestrial and marine nutrients, it was ideal for proliferation of microplankton. Species Richness and Equitability No attempt has been made to quantify community composition, because the specimens were collected over a 15-year period, and few data on sampling within a given collecting locality were obtained. Moreover, some A (04 \ “д^ H p 2 Ша... ашшы ыш Арый Text-figure 11.— Two interpretations of сїттї function in Camptocrinus. A. Upright position, with cirri illustrating — protective and feeding functions. B. Horizontal position, with cirri used for anchorage, stabilization, and feeding. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 19 of the taxa are known only from museum collections. We did, however, note the sample size of our own collections, and this information is shown in Table 1. If the relative species richness of each echinoderm class in our collections (Table 1) can be assumed to approximate true diversity and abundance during life, then crinoids were the most abundant echinoderms in the Sloans Valley environments. Crinoids comprise approximately 55 percent of our collections; 24 genera and 38 species are represented. This abundance and diversity may reflect the relative availability ofthe high suspension-feeding niche on the shoals and the im- portance of crinoids in creating suitable habitats for lower-level suspension feeders. Blastoids comprise 39 percent of our collections; four species of the genus Pentremites Say, 1820 (РІ. 9, figs. 8-17), are represented (Table 1). Species of Pentremites are found both in shales and on calcarenite lenses, but they are unlikely to have been common on the muds for lack of a firm substrate. Species of Pentremites commonly occur with crinoids, and locally may be the dominant echinoderms. A few of the shoal calcarenites are composed largely of blastoid thecae and skeletal parts, reflecting the probable dominance of blastoids on these shoals. The edrioasteroid Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler, 1936)(РІ. 10, figs. 1-9), comprises about 4 percent of our collections. Based on its occurrence in our locali- ties, it apparently lived in a variety of environments. It has been found on calcarenite lenses, in shales, and in calcareous sandstones, where most other echino- derms and fossils are lacking. — HAIN S INN INNY : lAarchaeocidaris Three echinoids, Lepidesthes formosa Miller, 1879 (Pl. 11, figs. 1-3), Archaeocidaris hemispinifera, п. sp. (РІ. 11, figs. 5—9), and Palechinus jacksoni, n. sp. (РІ. 11, fig. 4), comprise about 2 percent of our collections. Тћеу are commonly found on thin argillaceous wacke- stones and packstones along with many delicate fe- nestellid and rhabdomesoid bryozoans. The asteroid Calyptactis Spencer, 1930 (РІ. 12, figs. 4-7), an unidentifiable asterozoan (Pl. 12, figs. 8, 9), the ophiuroid Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a (Pl. 12, figs. 1, 2), and an uniden- tifiable ophiuroid (Pl. 12, fig. 3) comprise less than 0.5 percent of our collections. The shales and limestones ofthe Sloans Valley mem- ber also exhibit a rich assemblage of other inverte- brates. Most commonly found are brachiopods assign- able to the genera Cleiothyridina Buckman, 1906, Composita Brown, 1849, Anthracospirifer Lane, 1963, Dielasma King, 1859, Eumetria Hall, 1864, Diaphrag- mus Girty, 1910, Punctospirifer North, 1920, and Crania Retzius, 1781; to the bryozoan genera Fenes- tella Lonsdale, 1839, Archimedes Owen, 1838, Poly- рога М'Соу, 1844b, Lyroporella Simpson, 1895, Sep- topora Prout, 1860, Fistulipora M’Coy, 1849b, Eridopora Ulrich, 1882, Meekopora Ulrich, 1890, Prismopora Hall, 1883, Anisotrypa Ulrich, 1883, Ta- bulipora Young, 1883, and unidentified rhabdome- soids; to the gastropod genera Platyceras Conrad, 1840, Bellerophon Montfort, 1808, and Straparollus Mont- fort, 1810; to the pelecypod genera Aviculopecten M’Coy, 1851, and Wilkingia Wilson, 1959; and to the rugosan coral genus Zaphrentoides Stuckenberg, 1895. Text-figure 12.—Reconstruction of probable epifaunal (4rchaeocidaris and Palaechinus) and semi-infaunal (Lepidesthes) browsing life modes for Sloans Valley echinoids. 20 BULLETIN 330 | Table 1.—Number of specimens found at collecting localities in this study. Isolated crinoid plates identifiable to the genera Agassizocrinus, ¢ Bicidiocrinus, Pterotocrinus, and Tholocrinus, although abundant at several localities, are not included. Locality Crinoidea Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell, 1855 1 - 18 Aenigmocrinus anomalos (Wetherby, 1880) - - 4 Agassizocrinus conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852a - - ы, - - - - Agassizocrinus cf. A. dactyliformis Shumard, 1853 - - 4 Ampelocrinus kaskaskiensis (Worthen, 1882) - E 1 Anartiocrinus lyoni Kirk, 1940a - E - 1 Aphelecrinus randolphensis (Worthen, 1873) - - 12 - Bicidiocrinus wetherbyi (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886) - - 6 - Camptocrinus cirrifer (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) — - - - Culmicrinus vagulus (Miller апа Gurley, 1895) - - - Cymbiocrinus grandis Kirk, 19445 - - 9 Dasciocrinus florialis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) Е – 8 Eupachycrinus boydii Meek and Worthen, 1870 1 - 1 - 2 1 9 Ке НЕ, = оон бє | І І Hyrtanecrinus pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon, 1862) – - Linocrinus laurelensis, n. sp. - аў Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895 - - Pentaramicrinus gracilis (Wetherby, 1880) 2 - - - - - - Phacelocrinus bisselli (Worthen, 1873) - - - - Phacelocrinus longidactylus (McChesney, 1860) - Phanocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) 4 Phanocrinus parvaramus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 - Pterotocrinus acutus Wetherby, 1879a 3 Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday, 1860 1 Pulaskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz, 1965) - - L3 - - - a Ramulocrinus milleri (Wetherby, 1881) - - 14 - 1 - E Rhopocrinus spinosus Kirk, 1942a - - - ss = E = Strimplecrinus superstes (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) - - - - = = = Talarocrinus decornis Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 - - - - - = = Taxocrinus whitfieldi (Hall, 1858) - - 10 - Бе 1 - ~ — 1 ко Tholocrinus spinosus (Wood, 1909) [ - 4 - 16 E - Wetherbyocrinus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896) - - - - - - - Zeacrinites wortheni (Hall, 1858) 1 1 9 - 8 1 - Blastoidea Pentremites elegans Lyon, 1860 - 2 22 - 2 8 BB Pentremites pyriformis Say, 1825 1 - 14 - - 1 1 Pentremites robustus Lyon, 1860 - 1 9 - 3 3 6 Pentremites tulipaeformis Hambach, 1903 1 [ 133 - 19 13 Edrioasteroidea Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler, 1936) E - 2 E 9 19? 1 Ulrichidiscus pulaskiensis (Miller апа Gurley, 1894) - - - - - - – Echinoidea Archaeocidaris hemispinifera, n. sp. = en 5 = 8 = = Lepidesthes formosa Miller, 1879 == = 2 = “ * 28 | Palaechinus jacksoni, n. sp. 1 - - - = - - Stelleroidea Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a - - 2 - - = ES unidentifiable ophiuroid genus and species - - 1 - - - - | Asteroidea Calyptactis spenceri, n. sp. - - 1 - - - = unidentifiable asterozoan genus and species - - - - - - - More detailed faunal lists are provided by Ulrich (1905), However, on some of the calcarenite shoals at a given Butts (1922), and Bassler and Moodey (1943). locality, and in one instance, throughout the entire In most of the large crinoid assemblages we collect- locality (loc. 5), one or two species dominated. At lo- ed, the species appeared to be uniformly distributed. cality 5, of 50 crinoids found on a single bedding sur- MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 24 face, two-thirds belonged to the species Bicidiocrinus wetherbyi Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886. At locality 3, Phanocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) appeared to be dominant, and at another locality in Wayne County outside of the study area, Onycho- crinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895 and Pu- laskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz, 1965) were the only crinoids present on a calcarenite shoal body. We have noted other shoals composed largely of the plates of Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1859 and of blastoid thecae. We have also noted one large group of 11 ed- rioasteroids [Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler, 1936)] on a single slab, suggesting that they also were gregarious. The echinoid Archaeocidaris hemispinifera, n. sp., commonly is found in groups of two or more, sug- gesting that they grazed in groups, as some modern echinoids do. The apparent increase in species richness and in numbers of individuals at localities 3 and 5 (Table 1) is the result of a collecting bias. Localities 3 and 5 were active quarries, and new material was constantly being exposed. The other localities are man-made cuts, or abandoned quarries, which do not provide a constant supply of new material. Crinoid communities similar in age and occurrence to those examined in this study are known from the Bangor Limestone of Alabama (Burdick and Strimple, 1982). The communities in the Bangor generally have a crinoid diversity greater than or equal to ours. Other non-crinoid echinoderms are present in the Bangor (Horowitz, written commun., 1985), but their abun- dance and diversity are unknown. Relationships Between Species Ager (1963) suggested that two basic types of rela- tionships exist between species: antagonism, in which one species suffers because of the actions of another; and symbiosis, in which each species benefits without harming the other. Each of these relationships can be further subdivided into more specific interactions. Evi- dence for three of these interactions, two antagonistic and one symbiotic, is preserved in the Sloans Valley fauna. Antagonism Exploitation. —In exploitation, one species benefits at the expense of another. Two forms of exploitation, predation and parasitism, are found in the Glen Dean crinoid gardens. Predation on Recent crinoids by bony fishes has been reported by Meyer and Macurda (1977), Meyer and Ausich (1983), and Meyer (1983). How- ever, we see no direct evidence of predation by the durophagous chondrichthyan fishes that were present. Although some anomalous plates inserted into some ofthe calyxes could be construed to be healed wounds, genetic aberrations are an equally-likely explanation. The increased incidence of long spines and the thick- ening of plates (Text-fig. 13) in our crinoids, however, may be a response to the radiation of durophagous predators (Signor and Brett, 1983, 1984). Predation by echinoderms is well known, particu- larly in the asterozoans. Most of the Sloans Valley echinoderms were suspension feeders, although the echinoids and ophiuroids were probably herbivores, detritus feeders, and scavengers. The asteroid Calyp- tactis Spencer, 1930, however, was most likely an ac- tive predator on bryozoans. Parasitism is common in nearly all modern echi- noderms (Hyman, 1955) and was probably just as com- mon in many of the fossil forms. However, only one possible example has been found in the Sloans Valley echinoderms: a funnel of Phosphannulus Müller, No- gami, and Lenz, 1974, on a swollen crinoid stem. Ac- cording to Welch (1976), some species of Phosphan- nulus were probably ectoparasites on crinoids. Many infrabasal cones of Agassizocrinus Owen and Shumard, 1852a, and many crinoid stems show acrothoracic bar- nacle borings, but the barnacles were not parasitic and apparently made their borings after the crinoids died (Ettensohn, 1978). Competition. — Competition is a significant natural factor in nearly all communities and it can be detri- mental to all the individuals involved. The abundance and diversity of suspension feeders in the Sloans Valley echinoderm faunas suggests that competition for sus- pended nutrients probably was significant. Much of this competition apparently was reduced by niche par- titioning through tiering (Ausich, 1980). Symbiosis Commensalism.—In commensalism, one species benefits while the other is unaffected. A number of commensal relationships are preserved in the Sloans Valley fauna, and others are suggested. The most im- pressive example in our collections is that involving the ophiuroid Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a, which lived within the arms of Pulaskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz, 1965) (Рі. 12, figs. 1, 2; Text-fig. 14). Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling (1968b) suggested that the ophiuroid lived in this man- ner for protection and utilized the elevation that the crinoids provided to obtain suspended food higher in the water column. If this was the case, then the food particles used by the ophiuroid were probably of a different size than those used by the crinoid. It is also possible, moreover, that the ophiuroid fed on crinoid excrement. This commensal relationship is discussed in greater detail in the remarks for Onychaster Meek and Worthen, 1868. The gastropod Platyceras sp. was commonly found on the tegmens of the camerate crinoids Pterotocrinus Lyon and Саззедау, 1859 (Рі. 7, fig. 12) and Acrocrinus Yandell, 1855. The platycerids apparently were at- tached to the crinoid fairly early in life, because their shells grew to conform to the outline of the tegmen. Evidence from growth lines on the gastropods fur- thermore suggests that they were attached for much or perhaps all the life of the crinoid (Horowitz, written commun., 1985). These platycerids probably were co- prophagous and did not harm the crinoids, which ap- parently lived for many years with the gastropods at- tached. The smaller crinoids such as Cymbiocrinus Kirk, 1944b, Linocrinus Kirk, 1938, and Ramulocrinus Lau- Tholocrinus, Bicidiocrinus, Dasciocrinus type JR “М > San DADE MN Ме Ра VW 20077) 9 ID. yn яу, fA | 2 Pterotocrinus acutus (bifurcatus) Pterotocrinus acutus BULLETIN 330 don, Parks, and Spreng, 1952, may have been epizoans (Meyer and Ausich, 1983), using their cirri and arms to climb onto other organisms, such as bryozoans, and other crinoids, for elevation into the water column (Text-fig. 15). Our best evidence for this idea, though equivocal, is the stem of one specimen of Cymbiocrinus that was found loosely wrapped around a frond-bearing column of Archimedes Owen, 1838 (РІ. 2, fig. 8). The cirri on the stem may have been used to climb onto and grasp the bryozoan. Cirri in modern crinoids are similarly used for clinging and holding in place (Ma- curda and Meyer, 1974; Meyer and Macurda, 1980). The unusual zig-zag arms of the very small crinoids Ramwulocrinus (Pl. 4, figs. 22, 23) and Linocrinus lau- relensis, n. sp. (Pl. 1, figs. 10—15) appear to have been Pterotocrinus depressus Text-figure 13. — Examples of Sloans Valley crinoids bearing spines and spinelike plates. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 23 very flexible, perhaps more than was necessary for | forming a filtration fan. We suggest that these crinoids may have used their arms, and perhaps their cirri (spec- imens have not been found preserved with stems), to | climb onto higher structures (Text-fig. 15), to reach | more desirable currents higher in the water column, much as some modern crinoids do (Macurda and Mey- er, 1974). Whether this was accomplished with or with- out use of the stem is not known, but all specimens have well-developed stem scars. Some of the echinoderms, particularly the crinoids, | provided firm substrates for a number of epizoans both in life and death. Bryozoans, inarticulate brachiopods, and probable annelids have been found attached to | crinoid stems. Encrusting bryozoans have been found | completely encircling crinoid stems. Some exhibit ra- mose branches projecting in all directions normal to the crinoid stem, which seems to preclude their lying on the substrate. Crania chesterensis Miller and Gur- | ley, 1897, Spirorbis sp., and Cornulites-like worm tubes have also been found attached to and completely en- | circling crinoid stems. It is most likely that these forms | BR lived on upright crinoid stems, because they probably | Text-figure 14.— Possible commensalism between Onychaster would not have survived on stems rolling over a mud- | strimplei and Pulaskicrinus campanulus, n. comb. dy substrate. The same forms, however, have also been | \ Linocrinus £7 · „ Archimedes Text-figure 15. — Possible commensalism between small “hitchhiking” crinoids and bryozoans. 24 | BULLETIN 330 found attached to the flat portions of the wing plates of Pterotocrinus (Pl. 7, fig. 15) and to the flat internal surfaces of the infrabasal cones of Agassizocrinus Owen and Shumard, 1852a, as have acrothoracic barnacle borings (РІ. 7, figs. 10, 11, 17, 19, 21—23; Pl. 8, figs. 8, 11, 12). The plates on which these encrusters and bor- ings are found commonly are abraded and oriented by currents, suggesting that they were isolated plates when bored and encrusted. In other instances, the encrusters and borings occur on surfaces (e.g., the internal facets of Agassizocrinus infrabasal cones) that were never ex- posed 1n life. AUTECOLOGY Feeding Mechanisms Major feeding mechanisms among the Sloans Valley echinoderm fauna can be divided into five categories: suspension feeding, browsing, scavenging, active pre- dation, and deposit feeding. Suspension feeders com- posed approximately 84 percent of the echinoderm fauna; scavengers and browsers, approximately 5 per- cent each; predators, approximately 4 percent; and de- posit feeders, approximately 2 percent. As is com- monly the case on coarser, less stable sediments (Speden, 1966), suspension feeders dominated. How- ever, contrary to the interpretations of Walker (1972), each of the several dominant species in the commu- nities did not belong to a different feeding (trophic) category, and one species did not dominate each feed- ing group. Each of the several dominant species were suspension-feeding crinoids, and the dominant crinoid species varied from locality to locality and from garden to garden. Moreover, echinoderms in the other feeding categories were rare. More definite patterns might emerge if other invertebrates like the ubiquitous bryo- zoans were considered, but most of these invertebrates also were suspension feeders. The fact that the echi- noderms apparently do not exhibit dominance schemes relative to feeding mechanisms (Walker, 1972) suggests three possibilities: 1. food was so abundant that no partitioning of re- Sources was necessary; 2. someother type of partitioning mechanism was used; ог 3. environmental factors like substrate, shoal size, cur- rent direction, or other factors such as colonization order were more important in determining the numbers and types of echinoderms than feeding mechanisms. We believe that all three factors were probably im- portant to varying degrees. Suspension Feeders. — We believe many of the sus- pension-feeding echinoderms fed at different levels or tiers (Text-fig. 10), and hence tiering (Ausich, 1980; Ausich and Bottjer, 1982) may have been an alterna- tive to the dominance partitioning of Walker (1972). We have assigned suspension-feeding echinoderms to one of four arbitrary levels or tiers based upon the presence or absence of a stem during life, the length and width of preserved stems, the size and robustness of crowns, and the preservation of other features that reflect relative level in the water column (Text-fig. 10). Our definitions of all but the substrate level are arbi- trary, with only very general numerical limits; the levels serve only to group the echinoderms in a general way. Suspension feeders operating at the substrate level included the crinoids Agassizocrinus Owen and Shu- тага, 1852a, and possibly Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1859, as well as the edrioasteroids Ulrichi- discus Bassler, 1935, and Lepidodiscus Meek and Wor- then, 1868. Adult forms of Agassizocrinus lobatus B СА Se Unc T | | eeror e ГК s З т ess e ЫЫ Text-figure 16.— Possible life position of Pterotocrinus acutus апа Pterotocrinus depressus. A. Pterotocrinus acutus on a grainstone substrate. B. Pterotocrinus depressus on a muddy substrate. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 25 Springer, 1926 from the Haney Member of the New- man Limestone were stemless and lived with their dor- sal cups buried іп the substrate (Ettensohn, 1975b). We suggest that the Sloans Valley species Agassizocri- nus conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852а, and А. cf. A. dactyliformis Shumard, 1953, lived similarly. Ptero- tocrinus acutus Wetherby, 1879а, and P. depressus Lyon and Casseday, 1860, apparently possessed stems throughout their lives but may have lived on the sub- strate with the stem wholly or partially buried (Text- fig. 16). One specimen of P. acutus (UK 115907) was found apparently preserved in place in a grainstone in such a manner. Arms of many specimens were flexed outward onto the substrate as reported for the arms of Agassizocrinus lobatus by Ettensohn (1975b). This probable life mode is discussed in greater detail on pp. 46, and 55. Pterotocrinus acutus, found frequently in grainstones and packstones, probably lived on higher energy shoals; Pterotocrinus depressus, which is com- monly found in calcareous shales and marls, as well as some wackestones and packstones, probably lived in quieter basinal areas. Тће edrioasteroids operated not only at the substrate level, but also in the lower levels of the water column several cm above the substrate (Text-fig. 10). These edrioasteroids had peduncles that could expand or con- tract (Text-fig. 17), within a limited range (probably up to 6 or 7 cm), allowing them to attain different levels. The low-level suspension-feeding tier (Text-fig. 10) extended from about 2 to 30 cm above the bottom and included all the blastoids (Pentremites spp.), the ex- tended edrioasteroids, the small or delicately-con- structed adult crinoids, and juvenile forms of higher crinoids. We suggest that the genera listed in the low- level column of Text-figure 10 lived within this level. The medium-level tier (from 30 cm to 80 cm) in- cluded the moderate-sized adult crinoids listed in Text- figure 10, juvenile forms of crinoids whose crowns ex- tended even higher, and probably a group we call “hitchhikers”. The “hitchhikers” are small echino- derms that climbed onto higher-tier crinoids or other VPE. аа uu M M Ы aman Es GLSI За ~ i ar Text-figure 17.— Lepidodiscus in extended and contracted posi- tions. invertebrates for protection or to gain access to cur- rents higher in the water column. These include some small, normally low, agile crinoids such as Cymbi- ocrinus Kirk, 1944b (Text-fig. 15) and at least one ophiuroid genus, Onychaster Meek and Worthen, 1868 (Text-fig. 14). The upper-level tier included high, robust, adult cri- noids probably living at heights of 80 cm or more above the substrate: they are listed in Text-figure 10. This level also probably included several “hitchhik- ers". Based on preserved stem length and robustness of the crown, the flexible crinoid Onychocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1860, probably was elevated higher above the bottom than any of the other Sloans Valley echinoderms (perhaps reaching levels greater than 1.5 m). The most abundant and diverse suspension-feeding faunal elements apparently lived within the low- and medium-level tiers. Browsers. —We have categorized the echinoids Ar- chaeocidaris M'Coy, 1844a, and Palaechinus M'Coy, 1844a, as browsers (Text-fig. 12), not so much for what they ate, but because of the way in which they ate it. Most echinoids will eat nearly everything, but some tend to be dominantly carnivores, herbivores, or gen- eral scavengers (Hyman, 1955). We cannot be certain about what the Sloans Valley species of Archaeocidaris and Palaechinus were eating, but we suspect that algae comprised much of their diet if they were similar to many Recent regular echinoids. Deposit Feeders.— The echinoid Lepidesthes Meek and Worthen, 1868, was apparently very flexible, with an elongate shape and small spines (Pl. 11, fig. 1). We suggest that it was probably an epifaunal deposit feeder occupying a niche similar to that of some recent hol- othurians and irregular echinoids (Text-fig. 12). It was most commonly recovered from marly, argillaceous limestones and apparently fed on softer substrates in deeper, basinal areas. Scavengers. — Recent ophiuroids are dominantly scavengers, although many supplement scavenging with carnivorous feeding and suspension feeding (Hyman, 1955). For this reason, the two Sloans Valley ophiu- roids are classified as scavengers, although questions have already been raised about the feeding mecha- nisms of Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a. Onychaster Meek and Worthen, 1868, may have been coprophagous on the crinoid Pulas- kicrinus, n. gen., may have used the crinoid as an el- evated perch for suspension feeding, or may have ex- ploited some combination of both strategies (Text-fig. 14). Commensal relationships between modern cri- noids and ophiuroids are not uncommon (Hyman, 1955). Active Predators.— Because most asteroids аге саг- 26 BULLETIN 330 nivorous and active predators, we suggest that Calyp- tactis Spencer, 1930, and an unidentifiable asterozoan species (Pl. 12, figs. 8, 9) in the Sloans Valley fauna fed similarly. Moreover, both of our specimens of Ca- lyptactis are closely associated with fenestrate bryo- zoans (Pl. 12, figs. 4, 6, 7). Although the association may be accidental, it is also possible that Calyptactis lived and fed upon fenestrate bryozoans (Text-fig. 18). Many modern asteroids feed on bryozoans (Day and Osman, 1981; Jangoux, 1982), so the prey is not un- usual. Some of the disruption of delicate fenestrate bryozoan thickets commonly attributed to storms and burial may be related to Calyptactis. Is it possible that Calyptactis occupied the same feeding niche relative to Carboniferous bryozoans (Text-fig. 18) that Acan- thaster Gervais, 1841, (“Crown of Thorns”) occupies today relative to modern reef corals? Functional Morphology Some of the crinoid genera possessed peculiar or recurring morphological traits that require explana- tion. Because some of these morphologies are present in a number of genera, they may reflect synchronous convergent evolution. The morphologies are discussed below. Spines.—Six of the 28 crinoid genera present possess abundant or well-developed spines. Other crinoids may possess one to a few spines, but are not considered to be exceptionally spinose. Of the six genera, five [Das- ciocrinus Kirk, 1939; Rhopocrinus Kirk, 1942a; Thol- ocrinus Kirk, 1939; Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, Text-figure 18.— Possible predation by Calyptactis spenceri, n. sp. on fenestrate bryozoans. 1859; and Bicidiocrinus Strimple, 19755] (Text-fig. 13) are highly spinose, with spines that are large relative to the crown. The sixth genus, Onychocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1860, is moderately spinose, with smaller spines. The spines generally occur in three positions on these crinoids: on the arms, on the anal tube, and, in Pterotocrinus, on highly modified tegminal plates (Text-fig. 13). In the four inadunate genera above, all spines are concentrated on the arms and on the anal tube. Spines on the anal tube no doubt served a protective function at all times, but especially when the arms were ex- tended in their feeding array and the anal tube was fully exposed (Text-fig. 13). Spines on the arms would have been most effective when the arms contracted and assumed a protective stance. In this stance, the arms apparently nestled tightly around the anal tube and just below the terminal spines on the anal tube (Text-fig. 13). The result was a rigid cylinder with cycles of outwardly-projecting spines (Text-fig. 13). The larg- est spines commonly are on the primibrachials at the proximal ends of the arms and on the anal sac at the distal ends of the arms, thus protecting the calyx from both ends. Although the spines may have had second- ary functions such as forming small eddy currents to aid in feeding, their most important function appar- ently was protection. Most of the protection was di- rected toward the anal sac. The small spines and moderately spinose nature of Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895, probably reflect different protective needs and strate- gies. O. pulaskiensis has only a small anal tube, and the open, expanded nature of the calyx would have precluded the “armored cylinder" strategy of the pre- viously-discussed inadunates. The principal defensive strategy of O. pulaskiensis seems to have been inward rolling of the arms and thickened calyx plates (Pl. 6, figs. 1—4). Many protective strategies exhibited by these cri- noids were probably responses to the abundance of durophagous predators. According to Signor and Brett (1983, 1984), a number of invertebrate groups devel- oped various protective strategies like spines in re- sponse to a mid-Paleozoic radiation of durophagous predators. Among these predators were chondrichthy- an fishes, which were very abundant in environments represented by the Glen Dean Member and lower part of the Pennington Formation (Chesnut, in prepara- tion). Similarly, Meyer (1983) has reported crinoid pre- dation by modern fishes, suggesting that predation may have been an important selective factor in crinoid pa- leobiology. Species of the camerate Pterotocrinus possess “spines” that are completely different in morphology and origin from those of most other crinoids (Pl. 6, MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 24 figs. 9-14; Pl. 7; Pl. 8, figs. 1-12; Text-fig. 13). On most crinoids, spines are merely localized extensions of bra- chial, primibrachial, and anal-tube plates. In Pteroto- crinus, similar spinose projections are present on some of the free brachials, but the largest spines or “wing plates" are themselves individual (slightly articulated?) tegminal plates. Each of these plates is proximally thickened near its point of attachment, and undergoes distal thinning until the very end, where, in some cases, it bifurcates or produces secondary spinose projec- tions. Apparently in-place Pterotocrinus specimens (de- scribed in a following section) indicate that the genus probably lived partially buried in the substrate. About half of the free arms were flexed outward above the level of the wing plates, which appear to have been located at or slightly below the sediment-water inter- face. Most of the cup was probably embedded in the substrate, and all of the stem was buried below, but parallel to, the substrate surface (Text-fig. 16). We sug- gest that the wing plates may have acted to support and stabilize the calyx on the substrate in much the same way that outriggers are used to stabilize large sea- going canoes. The lateral expansion and bifurcations that are common at the ends of the plates would have increased the surface area of the plates and further enhanced support on the substrate. Not only would the spines have affected the vertical stability of the crinoid in the substrate, but they would have assured some degree of lateral stability in currents. Plates slightly embedded in or sitting on the substrate may have of- fered considerable resistance to any type of lateral or rotational movement on the substrate, and the en- larged spines may have helped to retard any destabi- lizing sediment scour around the crinoid in much the same way as do spines on brachiopods (Alexander, 1984). Some of the various spine morphologies, more- over, may have been ecophenotypic variations in re- sponse to varying substrates or current conditions. Some evidence suggests different substrate prefer- ences for the two Pennington Formation species de- scribed herein. P. acutus Wetherby, 1879a, is found more commonly on calcarenite substrates and exhibits a more conical cup. P. depressus Lyon and Casseday, 1860, however, is found more commonly on muddy calcarenite or shale substrates and has a dish-shaped cup with a flatter bottom. The flatter bottom may have offered more support in muddy substrates. Anal Sacs.—Over half of the crinoid genera de- scribed in this study have well-developed anal sacs (Pls. 1-3; Text-fig. 13). The purpose of this sac is unknown, but Lane (1975) suggested that the long anal sac in the Pennsylvanian genus Aesiocrinus Miller and Gurley, 1890a, either housed an extended hindgut or a hyper- trophied ring-canal system. He postulated that an ex- tended hindgut may have been needed to absorb or- ganic nutrients greatly diluted by clastics in a turbid environment, and that the pores or tubes associated with the anal sac of Aesiocrinus may have supplied extra oxygen to the hindgut. Conversely, the anal sac may have housed a highly-ramified water vascular sys- tem (Lane, 1975), the purpose of which is unknown. A large amount of argillaceous material is found in the limestones of the Sloans Valley member, and shale is a major lithology, so terrigenous clastics were abundant in the environment. More recently, Lane (1984) sug- gested that the anal sac housed gonads and that any excision of the sac by predators would have been less traumatic than attack on the cup itself; the anal sac also would have been more readily regenerated. Regardless of function, the anal sac apparently con- tained much soft tissue. The protruding mass of tissues, even though plated, no doubt required special protec- tion in the form of spinose arms and various spinose projections. About half the known anal sacs of Sloans Valley crinoid species bear spines or spiny knobs (see the discussion on spines); the rest are only incompletely known. In Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen, 1865, Phanocrinus Kirk, 1937, and Zeacrinites Troost, 1858, the anal sacs apparently were protected by stout, heavi- ly plated arms. Moreover, in forms like Zeacrinites, the tegmen is pyramidal and the calyx exhibits a robust, box-like construction (Pl. 1, figs. 1—4) similar to that of many Lower and Middle Mississippian camerate crinoids. This box-like construction may have provid- ed further protection for the housed tissues. Zig-Zag Arms.—The arms of most Sloans Valley crinoids are typical of Carboniferous crinoids in gen- eral. They are uniserial or biserial and composed of cuneate or rectangular brachials. The zig-zag arms of Linocrinus laurelensis, n. sp. (Text-fig. 19; Pl. 1, figs. 10-15) and Ramulocrinus milleri (Wetherby, 1881) (РІ. 4, figs. 20-23) are quite unusual in comparison. Both of these crinoids are very small, and the central axes of successive brachials lie at a large angle to each other, giving the arms a zig-zag appearance. In L. /aurelensis the brachials are short, but in R. milleri the brachials are very long and bear stout pinnules. Moreover, the pinnules in R. milleri are much longer on distal than on proximal parts of the arms. Pinnules are oriented at nearly right angles to the originating brachial, but are roughly parallel to the following brachial and per- pendicular to adjacent pinnules on the next arm. The configuration of the arms would have produced a fil- tration fan with a rectilinear, grid-like appearance. The rectilinear mesh of brachials, pinnules, and tube feet would seem to have been an effective design (Text-fig. Sy These arms also seem to have been extremely flexible and perhaps capable of some type of manipulative ac- 28 BULLETIN 330 tivity. The many angles at which pinnules and bra- chials were oriented on each arm may have facilitated grabbing and clinging onto other crinoids or bryozoans (Text-fig. 15). Hence, the possible agility of the arms or stems may have allowed these small, lightweight crinoids some degree of vertical mobility. The development of zig-zag arms was not new with the Sloans Valley crinoids. This adaptation has been long-lasting and repetitive, for it is present in crinoids from the Devonian (Schmidt, 1934, 1942) and Penn- sylvanian (Strimple and Moore, 1971; Strimple, 1975a, pp. 17, 18). Other small crinoids like Cymbiocrinus Kirk, 1944b, apparently relied partly on cirriferous stems for any climbing or clinging ability. One speci- men (PI. 2, fig. 8) was found with its cirriferous stem wrapped around the zoarium of a specimen of Ar- chimedes Owen, 1838. Bryozoans and other crinoids apparently not only provided anchorage for these smaller crinoids, but also a means of elevating them- selves higher іп the water column. Perhaps the most important implication of highly flexible arms is that not all crinoids were permanently attached to the substrate by their stems. Some, like Agassizocrinus Owen and Shumard, 1852a, and pos- sibly Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1859, lost or ceased using their stems for attachment and developed a semi-infaunal life mode. Others retained their stems but used them along with their arms for temporary anchorage and mobility. Coiled Stems.—' The small camerate crinoid Camp- tocrinus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897, possessed an unusual bilaterally symmetrical stem (PI. 8, fig. 17) that is commonly coiled (РІ. 8, fig. 16) and bears abundant long cirri on the inner side. The cirri are arranged in two rows (Pl. 8, figs. 16, 18), forming what appears to be a V-shaped curtain in which the crown is frequently found (Text-fig. 11). The columnals have fulcral ridges and ligament pits that allowed the stem to partially coil and uncoil (Ubaghs, 1978). The cirri and stem, moreover, are commonly larger and more robust than the crown (РІ. 8, figs. 16-19). The stem-crown rela- tionship is uncertain, but the stem most likely pro- tected the crown (Springer, 1926). Breimer and Lane (1978, p. 340) and Broadhead (1981, p. 146) suggested that the stem lay on the substrate and that the crown and delicate proximal stem uncoiled laterally when feeding (Text-fig. 11). Breimer and Lane (1978, p. 340) even suggested that these crinoids could swim short distances, using their cirri as oars. We believe that the curtain of cirri is much lower on the stem than would have been necessary for protection of the crown alone. Some, and at times, all, of the cirri may have been used for anchorage, but the formation of a V-shaped curtain seems to have been the major function of the cirri. The curtain would have formed no matter wheth- er the stem was in an upright or horizontal position. We suggest that this curtain may have functioned in one of two ways: 1. ifthe stem were upright and oriented back side into the current, or horizontal and oriented across the current, eddies would have carried food particles into lower velocity regions within the V-shaped cur- tain of cirri, where they would become trapped; or 2. if a horizontal or upright stem were oriented into the current, the V-shaped curtain may have fun- neled food-bearing currents toward the crown. We favor the first possibility because it is closer to the manner in which modern crinoids feed. In either possibility, the very flexible nature of the proximal stem (Pl. 8, figs. 16, 18, 19) would have enabled the small crown to sweep up and down the length of the stem for particles trapped within the curtain. Only in times of danger would the stem and cirri have curled around the crown to protect it (Pl. 8, fig. 16). Recumbent Arms.—' The camerate crinoid Hyrtane- crinus Broadhead and Strimple, 1980, (P1. 8, figs. 13, 14) 1s the only Sloans Valley crinoid with recumbent arms. Because the arms of Hyrtanecrinus are also bi- serial, they were not very flexible, and it is likely that their recumbent position was permanent. The recum- bent arms completely surrounded the calyx, and Broadhead (1981) suggested this position was impor- tant in protecting the small, delicate calyx. We suggest, however, that this position was probably more instru- mental in feeding. The recumbent position exposes the arms and pinnules over most of the calyx on a nearly spherical surface, an arrangement that allows the cri- noid to feed from any direction with minimal or no arm reorientation. This arrangement probably became especially useful in environments with changing cur- rents. The underlying calyx, moreover, provided a rig- id support for the arms that could prevent their dis- placement and deformation in all but the strongest currents. Even in environments with no currents, the arms still were well situated to collect the rain of sus- pended particles from above, especially if they could be flexed outward to some degree. In addition, Hyrtanecrinus had blade-like pinnules that may have articulated like Venetian blinds. This articulation could have enabled pinnules to reorient rapidly in response to changing currents without re- orienting the arms. We view all the above mechanisms as adaptations to maximize the feeding capabilities of small, low-level crinoids. Hypertrophied Arms.—' Two of our species, Agassiz- ocrinus conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852a, and An- artiocrinus lyoni Kirk, 1940a, exhibit hypertrophied arms. In A. conicus, one arm in each ray is hypertro- MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 29 phied. Ettensohn (1975b) suggested that the shorter arms in this form were probably used as supportive struts to stabilize this stemless crinoid on the substrate, noting that Clark (1921, p. 604) had observed a similar behavior in some stemless comatulids. However, a sta- bilizing function cannot be assumed for the two hy- pertrophied arms of A. /yoni, for the genus was stemmed (РІ. 4, fig. 10; Text-fig. 20). In A. lyoni only the posterior arms of the B and E rays are hypertrophied, and these two arms are not only slightly longer than the others but are at least twice the width as well (Pl. 4, figs. 7— 9). The hypertrophied arms are flexed slightly outward attheir midpoints and slightly inward above their mid- points, and are twisted posteriorly on the primibra- chials, so that they are always outside of the smaller arms and have a lyre-like appearance (Pl. 4, fig. 10). The apparent flexure of the hypertrophied arms 15 caused by the increased width of brachials at about the midpoint of the arms; from this point, brachials de- crease in width both proximally and distally. Strimple, Frest, and Miller (1977) suggested that the hypertrophied arms had a protective function, and there can be little doubt that this is true. Commonly, the smaller arms are found tightly enclosed within the two larger arms in an apparent protective stance (Pl. 4, fig. 10). We believe, however, that the hypertrophied arms had other, perhaps more important, functions also; these functions were most likely related to feeding. Hyman (1955, p. 42) indicated that certain comatulids develop hypertrophied arms in response to the exo- cyclic placement of the mouth on the tegmen. In the calceocrinids, hypertrophy of certain arms along with other unusual adaptations, enabled directed feeding in currents, as well as a protective stance when the calyx was recumbent (Brower, 1966). The common twisting ofthe two hypertrophied arms in A. lyoni to form a planar lyre-like array with the smaller arms suggests that these two arms were flexible. Moreover, we suspect that the lyre-like array (filtration fan) was the normal feeding posture. We suggest that slight movements of the hypertrophied arms may have reoriented the smaller arms into different lyre-like ar- rays in response to changing current directions. No doubt in a tidally-dominated area, as the sedimentary structures and stratigraphic sequence indicate this area was, current changes were frequent. In these circum- stances, the hypertrophied arms could have easily moved to reorient the feeding array or to assume a protective stance. SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY INTRODUCTION Species from six different echinoderm classes are described in the following section. Because most of the taxa are not new, they are summarized in brief diag- noses. Complete descriptions are provided for all new genera and species. Abbreviations of terms used in this study are listed in Table 6. In many of the initial studies of this fauna during thelate nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, species differentiation was based solely on morphological traits in individual specimens. Hence, each variation com- monly was the basis of a new species. We tried to identify the many species of earlier workers, but soon realized that many of these workers lacked the assem- blages to which we had access, knew little or nothing of population studies, and did not realize the extent of intraspecific variation. Most of our assemblages ex- hibited intraspecific variations, some much more so than others. Our concept of a species 15 based on as- semblages of individuals where they were available. Asaresult, many older morphospecies have been placed іп synonymy. In cases where only a few specimens were available, we were forced to rely wholly on the mor- phological traits of these few specimens and the work of others. Our synonymies are of the “equivalence” type, but in instances involving citations from authors whom we deem significant to Chesterian echinoderm re- search, the synonymies may additionally assume a "menu" format. Тће quantification of assemblages and variability in our echinoderm taxa has proven to be problematic. We frequently refer to "assemblages" of individual species, but the term 1s used in a most general way and may refer to a number of specimens ranging from a half dozen to a few hundred. It is impossible to sta- tistically quantify these assemblages" because of the varied sampling and collecting techniques we have used. Many of our “assemblages” were collected by the au- thors from spoil piles, the contents of which could only be approximately related to specific stratigraphic ho- rizons, and we are aware ofthe vagaries in the numbers and types of fossils one can find, depending upon the techniques used and the purposes for which one is collecting. Our only attempt at any type of quantifi- cation is the listing of the numbers of specimens of each species from each locality from our collections in Table 1. The catalogue numbers of specimens are pre- sented in the Materials section at the end of each species description. Additional uncatalogued materials col- lected since the inception of this manuscript are not included. Other “assemblages” from some of our lo- calities were examined at the U. S. National Museum, but they are generally old and poorly-labeled collec- tions, obviously subject to some of the same vagaries we experienced. Our use of these collections is noted in the Remarks and Materials sections of appropriate species descriptions. Specimen measurements are provided only where we believe that they are truly taxonomically significant. Where not significant, we describe calyx and crown size іп comparative terms. The terms “small” ог “‘small- sized" are generally used to describe crowns less than 2.5 cm in height; the term “medium-sized” is used for crowns ranging in height from 2.5 to 5.0 cm; and crowns greater than 5.0 cm in height are generally called “large”. Inasmuch as we believe that many of the slight vari- ations in size and shape of plates, parts of organisms, and organisms, that have served as the basis for many older Chesterian echinoderm species are products of ontogenetic or other intraspecific variation, we do not attach much significance to such measurements. Be- cause of these and other justifications cited in the var- ious Remarks sections, some of our synonymies may seem unusually long. There is also the considerable problem of quantifying crushed and otherwise varia- bly-preserved specimens. Additional detail on the size, shape, and conditions of specimens and their parts is presented in Chesnut (1980). DESCRIPTIONS Class CRINOIDEA Miller, 1821 Subclass INADUNATA Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885 Order CLADIDA Moore and Laudon, 1943 Suborder POTERIOCRINITINA Jaeckel, 1918 Superfamily ZEACRINITACEA Bassler and Moodey, 1943 Family ZEACRINITIDAE Moore and Laudon, 1943 Genus ZEACRINITES Troost, 1858 Type species.— Z. magnoliaeformis Troost, 1858. Diagnosis. — Zeacrinitid with subcylindrical crown; saucer-shaped cup with wide basal concavity; infra- basals small, largely hidden by stem; narrow uniserial arms, branching endotomously; short pyramidal anal sac; brachials with two pinnules, one on either side. Remarks.—Specimens of Zeacrinites examined by us reflect the division of European and American gen- era (Parazeacrinites Burdick and Strimple, 1971, in Europe and Zeacrinites in North America) based on pinnulation (Burdick and Strimple, 1971). Although our specimens show a great deal of variability in many other characteristics, pinnulation of the arms appears to be invariable. No satisfactory criteria have been established for differentiating species within the genus Zeacrinites. Sutton and Hagan (1939) thought that the relationship among anal-area plates and the number of primibra- BULLETIN 330 chials in the А ray (Table 2) were stable features within any species, and were, therefore, suitable for species recognition, but Springer (1926), Wright (1926, 1952), and Horowitz (1965) found considerable variation in these plate groups. Horowitz (1965) counted the num- ber of secundibrachials to see if they showed less vari- ation, but found consistency in only one species, Z. doverensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896), in which only one specimen was compared with the type. Therefore, he concluded that this measurement (Table 3) also was of limited value. He assigned some of his specimens to established species, first on the arrangement of anal- area plates, and second on the number of primibra- chials in the anterior ray (Table 2). He also recognized five additional species, but did not name them, because definitive characteristics for species of Zeacrinites needed study based on larger collections. Our studies of Zeacrinites assemblages from the low- er Pennington Formation indicate a highly variable species. Like Burdick and Strimple (1971), we found criteria such as anal-plate arrangement and number of primibrachials to be highly variable traits in any one assemblage. The only definitive trait in our assem- blages and іп forms that proved to be different species was the size and shape of the basals; this is the char- acteristic we use to differentiate the species of Zea- crinites. This method has resulted in placing many previously-described species in synonymy with the two species discussed below. Zeacrinites wortheni (Hall, 1858) Plate 1, figures 1—4; Tables 2, 3 1858. Zeacrinus wortheni Hall, p. 683, text-fig. 111. 1860. Zeacrinus bifurcatus McChesney, p. 9. 1860. Zeacrinus ovalis Lyon and Casseday, p. 71. 1865. Zeacrinus bifurcatus McChesney. McChesney, pl. 5, fig. 3. 1867. Zeacrinus bifurcatus McChesney. McChesney, p. 6, pl. 5, fig. 5 1894. Zeacrinus grandiculus Miller and Gurley, p. 32, pl. 2, figs. 143432 1894. Zeacrinus obesus Miller and Gurley, р. 35, pl. 4, figs. 6-8. 1896. Zeacrinus peculiaris Miller and Gurley, p. 34, pl. 2, figs. 17— 19. 1896. Zeacrinus doverenis Miller and Gurley, p. 35, p. 2, figs. 20- 227 1896. Zeacrinus kentuckiensis Miller and Gurley, p. 37, pl. 2, figs. 23, 24. 1926. Zeacrinus wortheni Hall. Springer, pp. 65, 81, 83; pl. 22, fig. 12; pl. 23, figs. 1-8; text-figs. 6—9. 1931. Zeacrinus chesterensis Sutton and Wagner, p. 31, pl. 5, figs. 12-14, text-fig. 1. йа 1939. Zeacrinus lanceolatus Sutton and Hagan, p. 87, pl. 15, figs. 11—13, text-fig. 2. 1939. Zeacrinus trapeziatus Sutton and Hagan, p. 88, pl. 15, figs. 15-17, text-fig. 3. 1939. Zeacrinus lineatus Sutton and Hagan, p. 89, pl. 15, figs. 7, 8, text-fig. 4. 1939. Zeacrinus acuminatus Sutton and Hagan, p. 90, pl. 1, figs. 4— 6, text-fig. 3. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 31 Table 2.— Anal areas in holotypes of species of Zeacrinites. CD BASAL CD BASAL TOUCHING ANAL X NOT TOUCHING ANAL X E *— 2. ap. C V. Sp. D Z- Sp E Horowitz Horowitz Horowitz Z. lineatus £z. sp. В (Sutton & Hagan) Horowitz Z. kentuckiensis Z. grandiculus Z. trapeziatus (Miller 4 Gurley) (Miller & Gurley) (Sutton & Hagan) j (variable) | Z. peculiaris 7. magnoliaeformis | | (Miller 4 Gurley) Troost | | 2. acuminatus 2. ovalis 2. lanceolatus (Sutton 4 Hagan) (Lyon 8 Casseday) (Sutton 8 Hagan) TWO ANTERIOR PRIMIBRACHIALS Z. brevilatus Z. chesterensis 2. 5р. A (Sutton & Hagan) (Sutton 8 Hagan) Horowitz Z. bifurcatus Z. wortheni (McChesney) (Hall) E | ANAL X RADIANAL C] POSTERIOR BASAL Z. doverensis Z. fusiformis Z. obesus (Miller & Gurley) (Sutton & Hagan) (Miller & Gurley) THREE ANTERIOR PRIMIBRACHIALS BULLETIN 330 Table 3.—Numbers of secundibrachials in the holotypes of species of Zeacrinites. А-Е = rays; К. = right; І. = left; Ant. = anterior; Post. — posterior. C B А Е р РОБЕ. Ant. Post. Ant. Re е Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Z. acuminatus 6? 3-4? 3? 4 K 4 4 9 - - Z. brevilatus 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4? 4 4 2. bifurcatus ? Т 4 5 5 5 | 2 4 D 2. chesterensis 4 3 5 4, 47 4? 4 4 6 4 Z. doverensis 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2. fusiformis 4 ? 0 ? 7 6 3) Sn ? 5 Z. grandiculus 4 4? 4? 51 6 6 4 3 4 4 | 2. kentuckiensis 9 37 3 4 3 Э З З 4? oY Z. lanceolatus 4 4 B 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Z. lineatus 4 4 4 4 4 4 4? S 4 4 2. magnoliaeformis 4 4 ©, 4 4 4 4 = - - Z. obesus 4 4 Э 4 4-5? 4-5? 4? 4? 4 4 Z. ovalis 4 4 4 4 B 3 4 4 4 4 Z. peculiaris 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 3 Z. trapeziatus 6? = S 4 7 6? 5? E - - Z. wortheni - 3+ 4 4 4 B 4 4 4 3 Z. sp.A Horowitz 4 4 3 5 5 4 2, 4 $n 3 Z. sp.B Horowitz 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 Z. sp.C Horowitz == = 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 Z. sp.D Horowitz HH ДЕР 3 155 4 3 9 2 5 8 2. sp.E Horowitz - - - = 3 3 4 4 4 3 1939. Zeacrinus fusiformis Sutton and Hagan, p. 91, pl. 15, figs. 9, 1965. Zeacrinites sp. A. Horowitz, pp. 19, 20, pl. 1, figs. 1, 2, text- 10, text-fig. 7. fig. 2F. і 1939. Zeacrinus brevilatus Sutton and Hagan, p. 92, pl. 15, figs. 1- 1965. Zeacrinites sp. B. Horowitz, p. 20, pl. 1, figs. 9—11, text-fig. 3, text-fig. 8. 2E. 1944. Zeacrinites wortheni (Hall). Moore and Laudon, in Shimer 1965. Zeacrinites sp. C. Horowitz, pp. 20, 21, pl. 1, figs. 12, 13, and Shrock, p. 163, pl. 61, figs. 2a, b. text-fig. 2G. 1965. Zeacrinites wortheni (Hall). Horowitz, pp. 17—19, pl. 1, figs. 1965. Zeacrinites sp. D. Horowitz, p. 21, pl. 1, fig. 14, text-fig. 2H. 6-8, 15, 19, text-figs. 2B, C. 1965. Zeacrinites sp. E. Horowitz, pp. 21, 22, pl. 2, figs. 1, 2. 1965. Zeacrinites trapeziatus (Sutton and Hagan). Horowitz, pp. 16, 17, ph: ы 3-5, ыр Diagnosis.— Zeacrinites with relatively short BB, 1965. Zeacrinites doverensis (Miller and Gurley). Horowitz, p. 19, moderately narrow anal aicen and medium-size бы pl. 1, figs. 16-18, text-fig. 2A. Remarks.— Upon comparison of our collection with MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 33 that at the U. S. National Museum, we observed great variation within assemblages from the same locality. The number of anterior primibrachials vary from one to three. Anal areas show extreme variability; some anal plates make contact with the posterior basal, whereas others do not, and many different arrange- ments of the anal plates can be observed. Most basals are short enough that they do not extend beyond the basal concavity, and hence, are not visible in lateral views of the cup. In some individuals, however, one or more of the basals are large enough that they extend beyond the basal concavity and may be slightly visible in lateral view. Moreover, some very unusual varia- tions in the size, number, and arrangement of the above plates also occur. For example, we observed one spec- imen (USNM 5-2690) with three anterior primibra- chials (the axillary being narrower than the rest, thus allowing the bottom secundibrachials to touch the sec- ond primibrachial); the left anterior (E) ray contained two primibrachials (the C, B, and D rays contained one each as usual); and tegminal plates were exposed in life between the E and D ray and between the E and B ray. We believe that these types of variations are intra- specific, and that all the specimens from this unit rep- resent one species. Examination of our collection, spec- imens from the U. S. National Museum, and descriptions and illustrations in the literature indicates that most species of Zeacrinites differ from each other only in these variable features and are not otherwise different. For example, variations in anal-plate arrangement and in the number of primibrachials on specimens in our collections would necessitate at least four different species, Z. acuminatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. lanceolatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. peculiaris (Miller and Gurley, 1896), Z. trapeziatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), and three other variants not assignable to any existing species (Chesnut, 1980). Moreover, oth- er workers have reported additional species variants, Z. brevilatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. kentuck- iensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896), Z. lineatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), and Z. wortheni (Hall, 1858) from locality 1 (Bassler and Moodey, 1943). Based on these variable characteristics, we therefore place in syno- nymy with Z. wortheni these and other similar late Chesterian species: Z. acuminatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. bifurcatus (McChesney, 1860), Z. brevilatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. chesterensis (Sutton and Wagner, 1931), Z. doverensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896), 2. fusiformis (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), 2. grandiculus (Miller and Gurley, 1894), Z. kentuckiensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896), 2. lanceolatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. lineatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), Z. obesus (Miller and Gurley, 1894), Z. ovalis (Lyon and Casseday, 1860), Z. peculiaris (Miller and Gurley, 1896), Z. trapeziatus (Sutton and Hagan, 1939), and Horowitz's (1965) five informal species. Only one other Chesterian species, Z. magnoliae- formis Troost (in Hall, 1858), remains. The differences we find between Z. magnoliaeformis and Z. wortheni are essentially the same as those noted by Springer (1926). Z. magnoliaeformis is generally a larger form with a wider anal area and larger basals. The basals are perhaps the most diagnostic character. All basals are generally large enough to be seen in side view, and the larger C-D basal is typically lanceolate to rectan- gular. In contrast, Z. wortheni is commonly smaller, has a narrower anal area, and has smaller basals that usually cannot be seen in side view (Pl. 1, figs. 1, 2, 4). The larger C-D basal, however, is relatively shorter and has a squat, angular form compared to the same plate in Z. magnoliaeformis. Z. magnoliaeformis may have some biostratigraphic value, because it appears to be restricted to the Gasperian, whereas Z. wortheni apparently occurs throughout the entire Chesterian. Burdick and Strimple (1971, p. 22) reported forms characteristic of Z. magnoliaeformis from the Gas- perian, transitional forms in the lower Hombergian (Golconda), and forms characteristic of Z. wortheni from the upper Hombergian (Glen Dean). However, forms characteristic of Z. wortheni by our definition have also been reported from the Gasperian (Sutton and Hagan, 1939). It is difficult to determine which of the species was the evolutionary precursor of the other, but the presence of transitional forms suggests a close relationship. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 1—3, 5, 6. Material. —UK 2901, 115591–115622, 116069, and many specimens under one number (USNM S-2690) in the Springer Collection, U. S. National Museum. UK 115612,115603, 115614, and one specimen from USNM 5-2690 are hypotypes in this paper. Genus BICIDIOCRINUS Strimple, 1975b Type species. — Hydreionocrinus wetherbyi Wachs- muth and Springer, 1886. Diagnosis.— Zeacrinitid with narrow basal invagin- ation; Brr usually biserial, branching endotomously; terminal anal disc of six to seven, subhorizontal, spi- nose plates joined at their bases. Remarks.— Bicidiocrinus, compared to Tholocrinus Kirk, 1939, has a rounder, more compact cup (PE figs. 5, 6), and a narrower basal invagination. Bicidi- ocrinus contains only spine-bearing plates in the ter- minal anal disc, has only one primibrachial in the an- terior ray, and has a round stem with nodes and internodes. Tholocrinus has a cup that is somewhat saucer-shaped (Pl. 1, figs. 7, 8) with a broad basal in- 34 BULLETIN 330 vagination; the arms bifurcate more frequently, апа there are several primibrachials in the anterior ray. Tholocrinus has a terminal anal disc composed of small plates surrounded by spines (Pl. 1, fig. 9), and has a pentagonal stem. Dasciocrinus Kirk, 1939 has a longer crown, uniserial arms, and fewer spines on the terminal anal disc (Pl. 2, figs. 1—4). Bicidiocrinus wetherbyi (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886) Plate 1, figures 5, 6 1881. Hydreionocrinus depressus Wetherby, pp. 325-328(partim), pl. 9, fig, 4, non pl. 9, figs. 1-3, 6. 1881. Hydreionocrinus armiger (Meek and Worthen). Wetherby, p. 328, pl. 9, figs. 5, 7-11. 1886. Hydreionocrinus wetherbyi Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 245. 1926. Hydreionocrinus wetherbyi Wachsmuth and Springer. Spring- er, р. 89, pl. 25, figs. 4-12. 1939. Tholocrinus wetherbyi (Wachsmuth and Springer). Kirk, p. 471. 19755. Bicidiocrinus wetherbyi (Wachsmuth and Springer). Strim- ple pls Е. figs. 7, 11. Diagnosis. — One IBr per ray. Remarks.—The holotype is from the *Glen Dean" (almost certainly the Sloans Valley member of the Pen- nington Formation) at Sloans Valley, Pulaski County, Kentucky. Many of our specimens exhibit six to 10 secundibrachials (Pl. 1, figs. 5, 6). The lowermost se- cundibrachials are uniserial, but the rest are biserial. Some specimens exhibit spiny axillaries at all levels, whereas others exhibit only spiny primibrachials. Six to eight spines commonly occur on the terminal anal disc; other disc plates are absent. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 3, 5. Material.— ОК 115623-115635, 116068, 116074, and specimens in the Springer Collection, U. S. Na- tional Museum. UK 115625 is a hypotype in this pa- per, whereas UK 115623-115626 and 115630-115632 are topotypes. Genus THOLOCRINUS Kirk, 1939 Type Species.— Hydreionocrinus spinosus Wood, 1909. Diagnosis.— Zeacrinitid with deep, broad basal in- vagination; one IBr in all rays except the anterior which has several; Brr biserial; arms branch endotomously; terminal anal disc composed of polygonal plates sur- rounded by horizontally-projecting spines (Pl. 1, fig. 9). Remarks.— For comparisons with other genera, see Remarks under Bicidiocrinus. Tholocrinus spinosus (Wood, 1909) Plate 1, figures 7-9 1881. Hydreionocrinus depressus Wetherby, pp. 325-328(partim), pl. 9, figs. 1-3, 6. 1909. Hydreionocrinus spinosus Wood, p. 93. 1926. Hydreionocrinus depressus Wetherby. Springer, 1926, pp. 89, 90, pl. 26, figs. 1-12. 1938. Xystocrinus depressus Moore and Plummer, p. 269(partim), fig. 21. 1939. Tholocrinus spinosus (Wood). Kirk, p. 471. 1965. Tholocrinus spinosus (Wood). Horowitz, p. 2, pl. 2, figs. 5— 10. 1975b. Tholocrinus spinosus (Wood). Strimple, pl. 1, figs. 8, 10, 12— 14. Diagnosis. — Lacks pits at apices of BB and RR; no respiratory slits are present in anal disc; most spine plates in terminal anal disc are in contact. Remarks.— Tholocrinus unionensis Strimple, 19755, has a shallower dorsal cup and more tumid plates with impressed sutures. Respiratory slits are absent in the anal disc of 7. spinosus (Wood, 1909), and most of the spines are іп contact, whereas 7. unionensis has res- piratory slits and an anal disc in which many of the spine plates are not in contact with each other. 7. fov- eatus Strimple, 1951b, has small pits at the apices of the basals and radials, and has a broad, flat base. Ac- cording to Strimple (1975b), T. armiger (Meek and Worthen, 1870) probably is conspecific with Bicidi- ocrinus wetherbyi. T. discus Strimple, 1975b, has a taller crown and a much smaller terminal anal disc with fewer spines than does 7. spinosus. In contrast to T. spinosus, which has wholly biserial arms, some seg- ments in the arms of 7. discus are uniserial. The holotype of Tholocrinus spinosus is from the “Glen Dean" at Sloans Valley, Pulaski County, Ken- tucky (almost certainly the Sloans Valley member of the Pennington Formation). Four to six anterior pri- mibrachials were observed іп our specimens, indicat- ing some variability in this character. The only spec- imen with a completely preserved anal disc (UK 115641) exhibits seven spines and 14 enclosed plates in the terminal anal disc. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 1, 3, 5. Material. —UK 115638-115644, 115646-115654, USNM 401444. UK 115641 and USNM 401444 are hypotypes in this paper, and UK 115637, 115642- 115654, and USNM 401444 are topotypes. Text-figure 19.—“Zig-zag” arms in Linocrinus laurelensis, n. sp. A = Anterior ray; B = right anterior ray; a = axillary brachial. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 35 Genus LINOCRINUS Kirk, 1938 Type species.— Linocrinus wachsmuthi Kirk, 1938. Diagnosis. —Subcylindrical crown; saucer-shaped cup with wide basal invagination; three anal plates in cup; anal sac coiled; cup plates usually rugose; one IBr in all rays except the anterior, which has three to six; IBrr keeled vertically; uniserial arms, in most species tend- ing to branch endotomously, except anterior ray, which branches isotomously. Linocrinus laurelensis, new species Plate 1, figures 10—15; Table 4; Text-figure 19 Etymology of Name.— The species name is derived from the county in which most of the specimens were found. Diagnosis. — Cup ornamented by converging ridges; anterior ray has five to six IBrr; peculiar, conical Brr (Text-fig. 9) alternately skewed to left, then right; arms branch isotomously. Description. —' The crown is small (23 mm in height in the two complete crowns), with a basin-shaped dor- sal cup ranging from 5 to 6.5 mm in diameter; plates in cup ornamented by converging ridges that run from plate to plate; depressions are present at triple-plate junctions. Stem is round and columnals have cuneate edges; nodes and internodes are not apparent; column does not fill the basal invagination. RR are low and wide, and ornamented like the rest of cup; superior facets occupy full width of R and exhibit gaping contact with the IBrr. One IBr per ray except in anterior ray, which has five to six; axillary IBrr are wider than they are high and are ornamented by three converging ridges; Table 4.— Arm structure of Linocrinus laurelensis, n. sp. Numbers of brachials in each branch are indicated. The A ray is anterior. 17 e 6 5 UK 115588 5+ 6+ 3E UK 115579 M 22+ 23+ 21+ 21+ 22+ 23+ a 12+ 10+ 3+ di 6 6 6 6 6 3+ У 2 6 UK 115701 6t 6+ 5+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 4+ 2 3* мак „Р 6 6 5 UK 115578 © © ду да # (holotype) 4+ ж 2+ 3+ 4 2 2+ 3 ОК 115571 a ex 4 ex к С с > т two lesser ridges from plate corners meet a stronger vertical ridge at plate center; the stronger vertical ridges give a keeled appearance to IBrr. In anterior ray, only ІВгІ has the keeled ornamentation; this IBr is subequal in size to the other IBrr, but is slightly higher; the superior facet forms the narrowest part of the IBrl. Remaining anterior IBrr (IBr2-IBr6) and the IIBrr of the other rays are very peculiarly shaped (Text-fig. 19); these brachials have the appearance of inverted, trun- cated cones with concave superior surfaces in which the succeeding cones lie (the narrow part ofthe brachial being proximal); in addition, cones are alternately skewed to the left and right to provide more than enough room for the alternating pinnules. Pinnules are com- posed of stout, cylindrical ossicles with heights ap- proximately equal to heights of the Brr; pinnules, 5 to 8 mm in length, are fairly long relative to the overall size of the small crinoid crown. Most rays, except the anterior ray, divide on the sixth IIBr; some divide on the fifth IIBr; anterior ray may or may not divide again in the IIBrr (Table 4). In one specimen (UK 115588, Table 4), the seventeenth or eighteenth anterior IIBr is axillary, whereas the other arm is undivided. IIIBrr in all rays are cuneate and do not display the cone structure as much as the IBrr and the IIBrr. Approx- imately 18 to 20 arms occur in each crown. Arrange- ment of anal plates is typical of other species of Lin- ocrinus; anal plates slightly rugose with depressions at triple-plate junctions. One specimen (UK 115571) ex- hibits an anal sac that is probably recurved toward the posterior; distal surface of sac is 8 mm above top of RR and just above the axillary anterior IBr; anal sac 1s composed of small, pustulose, hexagonal plates ar- ranged in irregular linear rows; pores may be present midway along double-plate boundaries. Remarks. — No other species of Linocrinus has the peculiarly-shaped brachials of this species. Other species with keeled primibrachials include: L. scobina (Meek and Worthen, 1869), L. praemorus (Miller and Gurley, 1890b), L. wachsmuthi Kirk, 1938, L. arboreus (Wor- then, 1873), L. cariniferous (Worthen, 1873), L. fa- culensis (Laudon, Parks, and Spreng, 1952), and І. lautus (Miller and Gurley, 1896). Of these, L. scobina has 11 anterior primibrachials; L. cariniferous has nine; L. praemorus, L. wachsmuthi, L. arboreus, and L. lau- tus have five each; and L. faculensis has four primi- brachials in the anterior ray. L. laurelensis, n. sp. has five to six anterior primibrachials (the holotype has five). The arms of L. laurelensis branch isotomously; the arms of other species tend to branch endotomously. Although L. /aurelensis is distinctly different, we be- lieve that many of the above species of Linocrinus are conspecific. The number of A-ray primibrachials is probably a highly variable character in any one species 36 BULLETIN 330 (Table 4). However, because none of the other species occur in the studied unit, revision of these species was beyond the scope of this study. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Localities 3, 5. Material.—UK 115571-115572, 115578-115579, 115588, 115701, and 115578 (holotype). UK 11571, 115572, 115578, 115579, and 115588 are topotypes, and UK 115571, 115588, and 115701 are hypotypes in this paper. Superfamily PIRASOCRINACEA Moore and Laudon, 1943 Family PIRASOCRINIDAE Moore and Laudon, 1943 Genus DASCIOCRINUS Kirk, 1939 Type species.— Cyathocrinus florialis Yandell and Shumard, 1847. Diagnosis. — Round stem with nodes and internodes; elongate, subcylindrical crown; low, saucer- to bowl- shaped dorsal cup with small basal invagination; IBB small, included in basal invagination; triple-plate junc- tions of BB and RR may be strongly impressed; anal sac extends to tip of arms or beyond arms and is ter- minated by a disc of subhorizontal to upward-pro- jecting spines, united at their bases; arms uniserial, branching isotomously about three times. Dasciocrinus florialis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) Plate 2, figures 1-4 1847. Cyathocrinus florialis Yandell and Shumard, p. 24, 1 pl., fig. 1. 1852a. Poteriocrinus spinosus Owen and Shumard, p. 91, pl. 11, fig. 4. 1852b. Poteriocrinus spinosus Owen and Shumard. Owen and Shu- mard, p. 596, pl. 56, fig. 4. 1855. Poteriocrinus florealis Shumard, p. 217. 1880. Scaphiocrinus spinifer Wetherby, p. 157 (14), pl. 5, fig. 5. 1920. Pachylocrinus cachensis Weller, p. 343, pl. 8, fig. 35. 1939. Dasciocrinus florialis (Yandell and Shumard). Kirk, p. 472. 1939. Dasciocrinus spinosus (Owen and Shumard). Kirk, p. 472. 1939. Dasciocrinus spinifer (Wetherby). Kirk, p. 472. 1943. Pachylocrinus cachensis Weller. Bassler and Moodey, p. 404. 1963. Dasciocrinus aulicus Strimple, pp. 101—106, text-figs. 1—4, pl. I, Прве бу 9; 19755. Dasciocrinus spinifer (Wetherby). Strimple, рр. 6, 7, pl. 2, Ме 122. Diagnosis. — One IBr per ray; ахШагіе5 spinose. Remarks.— According to Strimple (19755), the dif- ferentiation of species in Dasciocrinus largely has been based on the number of secundibrachials, although other characters like relative crown-spine length, smoothness of calyx plates, and the shape of brachials (Weller, 1920; Strimple, 1963) have also been used. We believe that these characters do not make useful taxobases and that the small variations in these char- acteristics, on which the five current species are based, are intraspecific in nature. In fact, two of the species, D. florialis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) and D. spi- nosus (Owen and Shumard, 1852a), come from the same locality and may represent different names for the same specimen (Strimple, 1975b). A third species, D. spinifer (Wetherby, 1880), comes from the same stratigraphic horizon (Glen Dean equivalent) as the previous two. Regarding the other two species, D. сасћ- ensis (Weller, 1920) and D. aulicus Strimple, 1963 (old- er and younger, respectively, than the previous three species), Strimple (1963) stated: Stratigraphically, D. aulicus is the youngest known species of the genus and there does not appear to be any significant advancement in characters as compared with those of the oldest known species, D. cachensis, from the Paint Creek Formation of Illinois. His statement summarizes our observations. We deem the slight differences in spine length, number of se- cundibrachials, and smoothness of cup to be insignif- icant in terms of species discrimination. For these rea- sons we have placed the four subsequently-described species in synonymy with D. florialis. In our small collection of 11 specimens, the number of secundibrachials ranges from six to nine, and our specimens are generally shorter than those previously assigned to D. florialis. Apparently, the number of se- cundibrachials and crown height were highly variable characters in this species, although in any one popu- lation, these characters may have been more or less stable. Except for these variable traits, our specimens are nearly identical to D. florialis and the four other previously-described species. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 3, 5. Material.—UK 115655-115664, 115932. UK 115657 and 115663 are hypotypes in this paper. Superfamily TEXACRINACEA Strimple, 1961 Family CYMBIOCRINIDAE Strimple and Watkins, 1969 Genus CYMBIOCRINUS Kirk, 1944b Type species. — Cymbiocrinus grandis Kirk, 1944b. Diagnosis.— Cymbiocrinid with shallow, saucer- shaped cup; large RA in posterior position with two tube plates above; two IBrr per ray, constricted lat- erally at junction; arms short, uniserial. Remarks.— Cymbiocrinus is similar to Ampelocrinus Kirk, 1942b except that Ampelocrinus has laterally vis- ible infrabasals and long arms. Cymbiocrinus has а dorsal cup with an invaginated base in which the in- frabasals are not visible from the side; the arms are also shorter and stouter. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 37 Cymbiocrinus grandis Kirk, 1944 Plate 2, figures 5—8 1944b. Cymbiocrinus grandis Kirk, p. 238, pl. 1, figs. 6, 7, 10. 1944b. Cymbiocrinus lyoni Kirk, p. 240, pl. 1, figs. 11, 12. 19445. Cymbiocrinus romingeri Kirk, p. 241, pl. 1, figs. 1-4, 8, 9. 1944b. Cymbiocrinus tumidus Kirk, p. 243, pl. 1, figs. 13, 14. Diagnosis. —Small to medium-sized species; round stem; Brr cuneate; first IIBr does not make contact along the entire lateral edge of the first IBr. Remarks.— The type specimens of C. grandis Kirk, 1944b, and C. tumidus Kirk, 1944b, both of which are from Sloans Valley, appear to represent the same species. Kirk (1944b) differentiated C. grandis from C. tumidus by the less tumid nature of its plates, its cu- neiform brachials, and its larger, stouter appearance. Examination of the type material revealed that the basal plates of C. grandis were so severely eroded dur- ing preparation that any tumidity could not be ascer- tained. The larger size and stout appearance may sim- ply be related to maturity. The type specimen of C. tumidus has slightly cuneiform brachials, whereas the brachials of C. grandis are very cuneiform throughout. In contrast, our specimens exhibit the smaller size and tumid basals of C. tumidus, but also have the very cuneiform brachials of C. grandis. Based on these spec- imens, we suggest that forms with the characters of C. tumidus may represent juveniles, whereas those with the characters of C. grandis represent adults; the bra- chials apparently become more cuneiform with age. The holotype of C. /yoni Kirk, 1944b (USNM S- 4430), differs from our specimens only in the smaller, less conspicuous basals. We believe that this species and its holotype merely reflect intraspecific variation within C. grandis. Kirk’s (1944b) paratype for C. lyoni (USNM 5-4430а), however, is from the Glen Dean Limestone of Grayson Springs, Kentucky, and belongs to the genus Aenigmocrinus Strimple, 1973b. Kirk's (19445) diagnostic characters for C. romingeri Kirk, 1944b, are well within the limits of variation for his other described species. Even though C. romingeri probably occurs in rocks (Ste. Genevieve Fm.?) older than those in which the Chesterian species described above was found, the form is indistinguishable from them except for its generally smaller size. However, even some of our specimens have a comparable size. Only C. dactylus (Hall, 1860), an older species from the St. Louis Fm., is smaller; but C. dactylus is more delicately constructed and consistently has relatively higher primibrachials. We therefore place C. grandis, C. tumidus, C. lyoni, and C. romingeri in synonymy with C. grandis Kirk, which has page priority, and suggest that C. dactylus may be ancestral to this and other species of Cymbiocrinus. The two remaining species of the genus, C. gravis Strimple, 1951b, and C. pitkini Strimple, 1955, are distinctly different. C. pitkini has only rectangular bra- chials, and in C. gravis the first secundibrachial is in contact with the complete lateral edge of the first and second primibrachials; both characters are unknown in C. grandis. Some of our specimens show well-preserved or un- usual characters not previously noted in Cymbiocrinus. One specimen (UK 115671), for example, shows that the stem was considerably smaller than the basal in- vagination and had cirri (РІ. 2, fig. 8). Other specimens (e.g., UK 115670; PI. 2, figs. 5, 6) exhibit distinct in- vaginations at triple-plate junctions, and one aberrant specimen (UK 115675) exhibits only four basals and four arm-bearing radials. The stem is very slender compared to the size of the dorsal cup, filling only a small portion of the basal invagination (Pl. 2, figs. 6-8), and not obscuring the infrabasals. The arms of these specimens converge just above the dorsal cup so that at mid-crown the diameter of the crown may only be two-thirds of the cup di- ameter. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Meramecian?, Chesterian). Localities 3, 5. Material.—UK 115665-115677, 115933; UK 115666, 115667, 115669, and 115672-115677 are to- potypes. USNM 5-4433 (holotype of C. grandis), USNM 5-4430 (holotype of C. lyoni), USNM 110708 (holotype of C. romingeri), and USNM S-4431 (ho- lotype of C. tumidus), as well as UK 115670 and 115671 are hypotypes in this paper. Genus AENIGMOCRINUS Strimple, 1973b Type species.— Poteriocrinus anomalos Wetherby, 1880. Diagnosis. —Small, compact crown; stem round with minor nodes and internodes; shallow, saucer-shaped cup with invagination in a broad base; CD basal large, almost reaching top of dorsal cup and supporting two equidimensional anal plates; RR are only cup plates visible from side, except for CD basal; anal sac re- curved with large flattened spines at summit; nine to 10 arms converge distally through a short distance, two per ray except anterior, which may have one or two; second IBr is axillary in all rays except anterior, which may branch on the sixth or seventh IBr if it branches at all. Aenigmocrinus anomalos (Wetherby, 1880) Plate 2, figures 9, 10; Text-figure 20 1880. Poteriocrinus anomalos Wetherby, p. 158, pl. 5, figs. 6, 6a, 6b. 1886. Poteriocrinus anomalos Wetherby. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 234. 1944b. Cymbiocrinus anomalos (Wetherby). Kirk, p. 236, pl. 1, fig. 5. 38 BULLETIN 330 19445. Cymbiocrinus lyoni Kirk, рр. 240-241 (partim), pl. 1, fig. 12, non pl. 1, fig. 11. 1973b. Aenigmocrinus anomalos (Wetherby). Strimple, fig. 10 (1— 7). Diagnosis. — First [Br is anvil- or ingot-shaped; many lower Brr are medially constricted, cuneate. Remarks.— The holotype, two other specimens from Wetherby's collection, and two from the Springer col- lection came from the “Glen Dean" Formation at Sloans Valley, Pulaski County, Kentucky (almost cer- tainly from the Sloans Valley member). Strimple (1973b) listed four specimens from the Fraileys or Ha- ney Formation in Union County, Illinois. Three of these had unbranched anterior rays; one branched on the sixth primibrachial. Тће number of primibrachials in the anterior ray is apparently a highly variable trait, and our specimens also show this kind of variation. One of our specimens (UK 115680) also demonstrates the nature of the stem, which is round (1 mm in diameter) and composed of small nodals and internodals. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Locality 3. Material. —UK 115678-115681, all topotypes. ОК 115681 is a hypotype in this paper. Superfamily SCYTALOCRINACEA Moore and Laudon, 1943 Family SCYTALOCRINIDAE Moore and Laudon, 1943 Genus PHACELOCRINUS Kirk, 1940b Type species.— Poteriocrinus wetherbyi Miller, 1879. Diagnosis. —Scytalocrinid with pentagonal stem; high subcylindrical or spreading crown; dorsal cup sub-tur- binate to campanulate or conical; anal plates typical of family; ventral sac cylindrical, composed of vertical series of equidimensional hexagonal plates; typically Text-figure 20.— Plate arrangement in Aenigmocrinus anomalos. A. Posterior view. B. Anterior view. PB — enlarged posterior (CD) basal; a — axillary brachial; X — anal-X; Ra — radianal. two undivided arms per ray; two IBrr per ray, which may fuse to form one plate that is deeply-constricted medially; Brr cuneate with long, slender pinnules. Phacelocrinus longidactylus (McChesney, 1860) Plate 2, figures 11-15; Text-figure 21 1849. Agassizocrinites gracilis Troost, p. 420 [nomen nudum]. 1850. Agassizocrinites gracilis Troost, p. 62 [nomen nudum]. 1860. Scaphiocrinus longidactylus McChesney, p. 7. 1865. Scaphiocrinus longidactylus McChesney. McChesney, pl. 4, fig. 4. 1867. potenti longidactylus McChesney. McChesney, p. 4, pl. 4, figs. 4, 5. 1879. Poteriocrinus wetherbyi Miller, p. 36, pl. 8, figs. 1, 1a, 1b. 1880. Poteriocrinus (Scytalocrinus) wetherbyi (Miller). Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 118 (343). 1880. Poteriocrinus (Scytalocrinus) longidactylus (McChesney). Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 117 (340). 1909. Scytalocrinus? gracilis (Troost). Wood, p. 88, p. 11, fig. 9. 1940b. Phacelocrinus gracilis (Troost). Kirk, p. 330. 1940b. Phacelocrinus longidactylus (McChesney). Kirk, p. 330. 1965. Phacelocrinus longidactylus (McChesney). Horowitz, pp. 28, 29, pl. 2, figs. 19-21. Diagnosis.—Turbinate cup; anal plates variable (Text-fig. 21); two IBrr per ray are generally fused (rare- ly, a ray will exhibit unfused IBrr), constricted medi- ally, longer than RR; Brr cuneate throughout and slightly offset, giving arms a slightly zig-zag appearance (Pl. 2, fig. 14). Remarks.—Species placed in synonymy above were all originally differentiated based on minor variations in the shape of the cup and plates. Because specimens from our assemblages show the same variations, we consider these variations to be intraspecific. Horowitz (1965) recognized the similarities between P. longi- dactylus and P. wetherbyi and placed the two in syn- onymy; we agree that these forms represent the same species. P. gracilis has slightly lower infrabasals than P. longidactylus, but we consider this type of variation insignificant. Agassizocrinites gracilis was listed but not described by Troost (1849, 1850) and is, therefore, a nomen nudum. Miller’s type (1879) came from Pulaski County, Kentucky (almost certainly from the Sloans Valley member). Troost’s (1849) type appears to be from the Ste. Genevieve Formation at Huntsville, Al- ађата. Р. bisselli (Worthen, 1873) appears similar but differs in its higher conical cup and in brachials that Text-figure 21.—Anal areas of Phacelocrinus longidactylus. A. Typical anal area. B. Top of RA even with top of radial. C. Four anal plates in anal area (UK 115808). B = basal; RA = radianal; X = anal-X. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 39 change from cuneate in the lower arms to quadrangular in the upper arms. In Р. /ongidactylus the brachials are cuneate throughout. Variability in plate arrangement and number was observed in many of our specimens. For example, var- ious anal-plate arrangements are shown in Text-figure 21. In specimen UK 115809, only two anal plates are present in the dorsal cup, and the primibrachials are smaller than in other specimens (The typical primi- brachial is longer than the radials and is constricted medially.). The radianal in this specimen 15 enlarged and excludes the right tube plate from the cup. Spec- imen UK 115808 has four anal plates in the dorsal cup ina very unusual arrangement (Text-fig. 21); it appears as if two radianal plates are present. In specimen UK 115807, two primibrachials are present in the right posterior (C) ray, but they are much narrower than the other primibrachials. The first right secundibrachial of the left posterior (D) ray is quite large and almost as tall as its primibrachial. Another specimen, UK 115814, has two (or possibly three) primibrachials in the right anterior (B) ray, which are much narrower than the others. These unusually narrow primibrachials could represent intraspecific variations, regeneration of lost arms, or held-over primitive characteristics. The prox- imal parts of all stems are pentagonal. Occurrence.—Upper Mississippian (Meramecian- Chesterian). Localities 3, 5, 6. Material.—UK 115586, 115589, 115803-115817, and USNM S-2770. UK 115803, 115808, 115811, and 115815, and USNM S-2770 are hypotypes in this pa- per. Phacelocrinus bisselli (Worthen, 1873) (not figured) 1873. Poteriocrinites bisselli Worthen (in Meek and Worthen), pp. 546—574, pl. 21, fig. 4. 1880. Scytalocrinus wachsmuthi Wetherby, p. 155, pl. 5, fig. 4. 1880. Poteriocrinus (Scytalocrinus) bisselli (Worthen). Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 117 (340). 1886. Scytalocrinus wachsmuthi Wetherby. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 238 (162). 1940b. Phacelocrinus bisselli (Worthen). Kirk, p. 329. 1940b. Phacelocrinus wachsmuthi (Wetherby). Kirk, p. 330. Diagnosis. — Cup more conical in adult forms. Brr thicker and cuneate in lower arms, becoming thinner and quadrangular in upper arms; Brr slightly thicker in medial parts of arms. Columnar facet with slight marginal rim. Remarks.—Though this species was not found dur- ing our study, Wetherby (1880) reported that the type of P. wachsmuthi (Wetherby, 1880) was found in the Kaskaskia Group of Pulaski County, Kentucky. This specimen was almost certainly from the Sloans Valley member at Sloans Valley, Kentucky, but could not be located for study. Comparison of P. wachsmuthi with P. bisselli (Wor- then,1873) revealed that the arrangement of cuneate and quadrangular brachials in the arms of each species was similar. The change from proximal cuneate bra- chials to quadrangular brachials distally is distinctive for P. bisselli. Hence, it is likely that P. bisselli and P. wachsmuthi are synonymous; P. bisselli, however, has priority. The two species are also similar in the medial thickening of the arms and in the presence of a slight marginal rim at the columnar facet. One of Worthen’s two illustrated specimens (pl. 21, fig. 4a) is larger and exhibits a more conical cup than the other. The smaller, broader specimen compares very favorably with Wetherby’s (1880) specimen. We suggest that the smaller specimens with broader cups are juveniles. Occurrence.—Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Genus PULASKICRINUS, new genus Etymology of name.— The name is taken from Pu- laski County, Kentucky, where all the specimens in this study were found. Type species.— Pulaskicrinus campanulus (Ного- witz, 1965), new combination. Diagnosis. —Scytalocrinid with campanulate to broadly turbinate dorsal cup; IBB, BB, RR large and visible from side view; one IBr per ray; space between adjacent IBrr filled with tiny tegminal plates attached to sides of IBrr and to the upper corners of the radials; rays branch 1sotomously two or three times above main dichotomy, with tendency toward endotomous divi- sion (Table 5); anal area typical of scytalocrinids, wide; ventral sac cylindrical, with distal spines. Remarks.— One species is currently included in the genus, the result of a new combination. P. campanulus (Horowitz, 1965) was formerly included in the genus Hypselocrinus Kirk, 1940b. The type of P. campanulus (IU 5936) was collected from the Glen Dean Forma- tion at Cloverport, Breckinridge County, Kentucky. The new specimens were collected from the Sloans Valley member of the Pennington Formation at lo- cality 3, Strunk Quarry, Pulaski County, Kentucky. Pulaskicrinus is probably most closely related to Haeretocrinus Moore and Plummer, 1940 from the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian-Virgilian) (Strimple and Moore, 1971). Haeretocrinus, however, appears to branch exotomously above the first dichotom. Haer- etocrinus has a recurved anal sac, a round stem and appears to lack the small, exposed tegminal plates be- tween the primibrachials. Hypselocrinus typically has nine arms, which branch isotomously. It has a conical cup and a circular stem. Horowitz’s type retained no arms, apparently leading to misidentification as Hypselocrinus. 40 BULLETIN 330 Pulaskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz, 1965), new combination Plate 3, figures 1—5; Plate 12, figures 1, 2, Table 5; Text-figure 22 1965. Hypselocrinus campanulus Horowitz, pp. 27, 28, pl. 2, fig. 11-14, text-fig. 3. Diagnosis.—Dorsal cup broadly turbinate to cam- panulate. Most IBrr with straight sides (not constrict- ed). Description. — Column round with nodals and inter- nodals. Scytalocrinid with campanulate to broadly tur- binate dorsal cup (PI. 3, figs. 1-5); IBB medium-sized, visible from side, and occupy one-fourth of dorsal cup; BB large, hexagonal except CD basal and BC basal, which are heptagonal; RR wider than high (slightly less than 2:1 ratio); width of radial articulating facet slightly less than width of radial; small projections on both sides of the facets project upward and inward around the facet and make contact with small tegminal plates between arms (Pl. 3, fig. 2; Text-fig. 22); suture slightly gaping. First IBr axillary in all rays, wider than high, short, narrower than RR such that a gap exists between adjacent IBrr; IBrr generally straight-sided, but rarely constricted; smooth tegminal platelets fill gap between IBrr and ascend steeply toward the ventral sac (Text- fig. 22); first IIBr in each ray is larger than others; above main dichotomy, rays branch two or three times (Table 5); tendency toward endotomous division within arms above the first isotomous branching; proximal Brr slightly sloping and quadrangular, becoming more cu- neate distally; each Br supports one long, slender pin- nule. Four to 14 IIBrr present in each arm; seven to 10 typical. Axillary Brr may be slightly tumid, giving arms a knotty appearance. Anal area is typical of scy- talocrinids, but broad (Pl. 3, fig. 3); RA, anal X, and RX plates occur within cup; RA pentagonal; anal X is large, heptagonal, and is only partially contained in cup; RX plate is same size as RA and is only partially contained in cup; anal X and RX plate support three plates on their upper surfaces. Ventral sac is cylindrical and about two-thirds length of arms; plates of ventral sac are small and spinose proximally, increasing in size and spininess near the distal end of the sac. Ambulacra descend from the arms onto the tegmen and exhibit two uniserial rows of small cover plates. Remarks.— Hypselocrinus campanulus was original- ly described by Horowitz (1965) from a single dorsal cup with a few brachials; the arms were unknown. Many of our specimens, however, have the complete arms. P. campanulus also displays many small teg- minal plates between the primibrachials (see Horowitz, 1965, pl. 2, figs. 12, 13). A remarkable thing about this crinoid, however, is the presence of the ophiuroid Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a, wrapped around the ventral sacs of at least two specimens (UK 115998, UK 115997: Pl. 12, figs. 1, 2). Other specimens also show evidence of this commensalism. One ophiuroid is situated with its oral disc about halfway up the ven- tral sac of the crinoid. If the ophiuroid was copropha- gous, then its position might indicate the position of the anal opening (the oral disc is on the left anterior side of the crinoid). However, Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling (1968b) suggested that Onychaster Meek and Worthen, 1868, was not coprophagous due to well- developed masticatory apparatus and restricted oral intake. They suspected that the ophiuroid and the cri- noid utilized food particles of different sizes and that the specimen of Onychaster resided on the crinoid ca- lyx for protection and gathered food particles too large for the crinoid. The crinoids may have also provided elevation into the water column (see p. 65 and Text- fig. 14). Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Locality 3. Material.—UK 115832-115842, 115997, and 115998, and IU 5936, the holotype. UK 115834, 115835, and 115837 are hypotypes in this paper. Genus WETHERBYOCRINUS, new genus Etymology of Name.— The genus is named after A. G. Wetherby, who found the holotype ofthe type species and also discovered the classic Sloans Valley collecting locality. Type species.— Poteriocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1896. Diagnosis. — Medium-size scytalocrinid with turbi- nate dorsal cup; sutures between plates in cup are strongly impressed at triple-plate boundaries (Pl. 3, figs. 6, 7); IBB small, visible from side, truncated at base, forming a platform; three anal plates in cup (PI. 3, figs. 6, 7); one IBr per ray. Remarks.— Of all the genera and species previously described from the Sloans Valley area, this is one of two species [the other is Culmicrinus vagulus (Miller and Gurley, 1895)] that have been virtually forgotten tp : c Text-figure 22. — Interbrachial platelets of Pulaskicrinus campan- ulus, n. comb. tp — interbrachial platelets; rp — radial process. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 41 a Table 5.—Arm structure of Pulaskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz), n. comb. Numbers of brachials in each branch are indicated. The A ray is anterior. Triangles represent primibrachials. 17+ з 7, и.к. 115835 УХ" yer А уң ve У W д 1 4 10, U.K. 115833 YN N У О.К. 115842 а AM суча “W TET ИШ MMC WC ў 1) яа XX U.K. 115841 SUC x. МУ YY: у 8 U.K. 115998 A re 6 5+, 4+ 5+ , 7+ UK. 115997 YN рач “К = А ЕИ а, дссс, | МКА Өн: а AEN UK. 115889 "УХ ras a а Be ie c не sj г NC € em 42 BULLETIN 330 since the work of Bassler and Moodey (1943). Bassler and Moodey reassigned the species to Poteriocrinites Miller, 1821; however, Poteriocrinites subsequently has been split into many genera, and this species no longer fits the modern definition of Poteriocrinites. The species was never reassigned to another genus. The characters of the new genus are similar to those of the families Scytalocrinidae and Aphelecrinidae. However, these characters are more similar to those of the Scytalocrinidae because of the visibility of in- frabasals from the side, the truncate base, nature of the preserved arms, and its resemblance to the scytalo- crinid Sostronocrinus Strimple and McGinnis, 1969. Sostronocrinus has the same general cup shape with a truncate base, and it has strongly-impressed sutures at triple-plate junctures as does Wetherbyocrinus. The major difference, however, is that Sostronocrinus has two to three primibrachials per ray in contrast to the one primibrachial per ray in Wetherbyocrinus. Sos- tronocrinus is an earlier (Kinderhookian) scytalocrinid, and such early forms generally are characterized by a greater number of primibrachials; in later forms, this number is usually reduced to one. We suggest that Wetherbyocrinus possibly evolved from a form like Sostronocrinus through a loss of primibrachials. Wetherbyocrinus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896), new combination Plate 3, figures 6, 7 1896. Poteriocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, p. 39, pl. 3, figs. 26.271 1943. Poteriocrinites pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley). Bassler and Moodey, p. 644. Diagnosis. — IBr medially constricted. Description. — Dorsal cup 0.8 cm high, 1.2 cm wide, turbinate, plates smooth, slightly tumid; sutures im- pressed at triple-plate junctions (Pl. 3, figs. 6, 7); max- imum diameter at level of RR and along a line passing through E ray and B-C interray. No stem present in type specimen, but stem was probably present, because a very small lumen occurs between IBB, and the IBB form a very truncate platform probably to receive stem. IBB quadrangular (diamond-shaped) with proximal facets longer than distal, wider than high, only distal- most portion visible from side view; proximal parts of plates are inturned to form platform for probable stem. Posterior BB are wider than high, C-D basal is hex- agonal, B-C basal is seven-sided; anterior BB are higher than wide, hexagonal. RR pentagonal, wider than high, greatest width at top of cup; R articular facets wide, each with ligament pits and a transverse ridge that runs length of plate. Three anal plates typical of Scytalo- crinidae; upper two plates only partially in cup (Pl. 3, fig. 6). Only E and A ray IBrr are preserved; one IBr per ray, wider than high with greatest width at level of RR; IBrr medially constricted and flaring outward dis- tally (Pl. 3, fig. 7). Arms not preserved, but probably two arms per ray; probably uniserial. Remarks.—In Miller and Gurley's (1896) original description and figures, they indicated two IBrr per ray. Our examination of the type specimen, however, indicates only one per ray. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Material.— UC 6488 (holotype). Family BLOTHROCRINIDAE Moore and Laudon, 1943 Genus CULMICRINUS Jaeckel, 1918 Type species.— Poteriocrinus regularis Meyer, 1858. Diagnosis.—Medium to large blothocrinid; stem typically round, cone-shaped cup (Pl. 3, fig. 8); five upflared IBB visible from side; three anal plates in primitive arrangement (РІ. 3, fig. 8); long anal sac with anal opening low and on anterior side, numerous small anal-sac plates іп vertical series (Pl. 3, figs. 8, 10); arms uniserial, two or more IBrr per ray (Pl. 3, figs. 8—10), anterior ray branching much higher if at all, second branching at about mid-crown height; Brr cuneate. Culmicrinus vagulus (Miller and Gurley, 1895) Plate 3, figures 8-10 1895. Poteriocrinus vagulus Miller and Gurley, p. 46, pl. 4, figs. 10, ІА. 1897. Scaphiocrinus elegans Wachsmuth and Springer, pl. 7, figs. la, b. 1926. Culmicrinus elegans (Wachsmuth and Springer). Springer, p. 74, pl. 18, figs. 1, la. 1943. Poteriocrinites vagulus (Miller and Gurley). Bassler and Moodey, p. 645. 1943. Culmicrinus elegans (Wachsmuth and Springer). Bassler and Moodey, p. 383. Diagnosis.— Moderately conical dorsal cup; BB moderately wide; less than 10 IBrr per ray except for anterior ray, which may be unbranched. Remarks.—Springer (1926) removed this species from the genus Scaphiocrinus Hall, 1858 and placed it in the genus Culmicrinus. However, Springer ap- parently was unaware of earlier work by Miller and Gurley (1895) in which a nearly identical specimen from the same locality as Scaphiocrinus elegans Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897, was described as Po- teriocrinus vagulus Miller and Gurley, 1895. This species has been all but forgotten, except in the work of Bassler and Moodey (1943), where it was included in a synonymy for Poteriocrinites. Our examination of the type of Poteriocrinites vagulus (Miller and Gurley, 1895) indicates that it is the same species that Springer called Culmicrinus elegans (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897). Moreover, P. vagulus and C. elegans were col- MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 43 lected from the same locality. Because P. vagulus has priority, the correct designation for this species is Cul- micrinus vagulus (Miller and Gurley, 1895). The ho- lotype then becomes that of Poteriocrinus vagulus, and the specimens described by Wachsmuth and Springer (1897), and later placed in synonymy by Springer (1926), become topotypes. The most similar species 15 C. missouriensis (Shu- mard, 1857), which is from the St. Louis Formation of Missouri. C. missouriensis is characterized by a steeply conical cup, smaller plates in the cup, and more than 10 primibrachials per ray; in contrast, C. vagulus is characterized by a broader, moderately conical cup, larger plates, and fewer than ten primibrachials per ray. Similar differences in other species have been at- tributed to intraspecific variation, and these two species are so similar overall that the possibility that they are the same species also must be considered. Nonetheless, the substantial difference in the age of the two species, the fact that similar changes in the shape of the cup and the number of primibrachials have been observed in the phylogeny of other Chesterian crinoids leads us to conclude that C. missouriensis is a more primitive form that gave rise to the more advanced C. vagulus in the Chesterian. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Material. — UC 6418 (holotype), USNM 5-2638 (two specimens, topotypes). Family APHELECRINIDAE Strimple, 1967 Genus APHELECRINUS Kirk, 1944a Type species. —Aphelecrinus elegans Kirk, 1944a. Diagnosis. — Crown upflared; dorsal cup cone-shaped to campanulate; three anal plates in normal (primitive) arrangement (Moore and Laudon, 1943); anal sac one- half to two-thirds height of arms, may be reflexed, composed of vertical rows of small, polygonal plates; one IBr per ray, slightly to very constricted medially; arms moderately long and moderately stout; arms usu- ally divide only once above the IBrr; Brr sloping, quad- rangular to cuneate. Aphelecrinus randolphensis (Worthen, 1873) Plate 4, figures 5, 6, 12, 13 1873. Poteriocrinus (Scaphiocrinus) randolphensis Worthen, p. 551, pl. 21, fig. 14. 1880. Poteriocrinus (Scaphiocrinus) randolphensis Worthen. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 113. 1944a. Aphelecrinus limatus Kirk, pp. 196, 197, pl. 1, fig. 10. 1944a. Aphelecrinus randolphensis (Worthen). Kirk, p. 200. 1944a. Aphelecrinus mundus Kirk, pp. 197, 198, pl. 1, fig. 9. 1944a. Aphelecrinus oweni Kirk, pp. 198-200, pl. 1, figs. 1-3. 1965. Aphelecrinus randolphensis (Worthen). Horowitz, pp. 26, 27, posu d 1965. Aphelecrinus oweni Kirk. Horowitz, pp. 25, 26, pl. 2, figs. 15— 17, 1965. ?Aphelecrinus bayensis (Meek апа Worthen). Horowitz, pp. 24, 25, pl. 2, figs. 3, 4. Diagnosis. — Proximal column, circular to subpen- tagonal, with nodals and internodals; dorsal cup cam- panulate; sides of cup diverge moderately to level of RR, which then diverge even more abruptly (Pl. 4, figs. 6, 12); ventral sac extends one-halfto two-thirds height of arms, recurved, composed of carinate tube plates; distal plates may be subspinose; IBrr variable in height and amount of medial constriction (Pl. 4, figs. 5, 12, 13); second branching of arms occurs at varying heights, but usually in the lower half of the arms (РІ. 4, fig. 6); third branching uncommon but may occur indepen- dently; long, stout pinnules borne alternately on Brr (РІ. 4, fig. 6). Remarks.—A. randolphensis (Worthen, 1873), A. limatus Kirk, 1944a, A. mundus Kirk, 1944a, and A. oweni Kirk, 1944a, were differentiated on the basis of characters that we deem to be intraspecific and minor in nature, such as the angle at which the cup diverges, the nature of the stem, and the nature of the constric- tion on the primibrachials. All specimens have basi- cally the same campanulate cup; greater or lesser de- grees of cup divergence are apparently related to mode of preservation. The stems on all three forms appear to be round, although the internodals may have a slight pentagonal outline. All variations in the degree of con- striction on the primibrachials occur in our specimens, and in some instances, within a single specimen. The variations in the above characters are great enough in our assemblage that all three of Kirk's species could be identified. Moreover, Kirk's three species probably were collected from the same locality. The above con- siderations lead us to conclude that the genus has been oversplit in the Glen Dean Limestone, and that Kirk's three Glen Dean Limestone species should be placed in synonymy with A. randolphensis. The holotype of A. randolphensis, though smaller than most of our specimens, is identical in every other way, and prob- ably was collected from the Glen Dean Limestone at Chester, Illinois. Examination of the holotype of А. bayensis (Meek and Worthen, 1865) also revealed characteristics sim- ilar to A. randolphensis, except for the probable ab- sence of branching above the primibrachial. The pres- ence of 10 unbranched arms is the most diagnostic character of A. bayensis. We believe that this character of the arms also may be an intraspecific variation. However, because we lack specimens from our assem- blages showing the character and because the character is so distinctive, we suggest that А. bayensis be main- tained for the present. Although we have not examined Horowitz's (1965) hypotype of A. bayensis, in all other ways it is similar to А. randolphensis. Hence, even though the arms are not preserved high enough above the primibrachial to discern the possibility, we ques- tionably place it in synonymy with A. randolphensis. Over 21 species are currently recognized in this ge- nus, making it one of the largest genera in terms of species in the Late Mississippian. We believe, however, that this genus has been oversplit and is in need of major revision. Although we have examined only species from the Glen Dean Limestone, future study may indicate the need to place even more species in synonymy with А. randolphensis. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 3, 5. Material.—UK 115818-115831, 115841, and 116071, USNM 5-2618 (holotype of А. limatus), USNM S-4437 (holotype of А. mundus), and UI X- 276 (holotype of A. randolphensis. UK 115581, 115826-115827 are hypotypes in this study. Superfamily LOPHOCRINACEA Bather, 1899 Family STELLAROCRINIDAE Strimple, 1961 Genus RHOPOCRINUS Kirk, 1942a Type species. — Rhopocrinus spinosus Kirk, 1942a. Diagnosis. — Crown of medium height; cup broadly turbinate; IBB small, barely visible in lateral view; groove-like depression between distal portions of ad- jacent RR (РІ. 3, fig. 13); articulating facet does not extend full width of RR; two IBrr per ray; arms stout proximally, becoming slender distally (Pl. 3, fig. 11); strong tendency toward endotomous branching, uni- serial except for distal portions, which approach a bi- serial condition; Brr cuneate; axillaries may bear spines; anal sac composed of small nodose plates and may extend three-fourths or more the height of the arms; distal portion bears outwardly projecting spines. Remarks.— Kirk (19422) placed three species in this genus; however, our examination of these species sug- gests that R. municipalis (Wood, 1909) and R. pro- boscidialis (Worthen, 1875) may not belong to this genus. Some characteristics of this genus reflect affin- ities to the Aphelecrinidae. Rhopocrinus spinosus Kirk, 1942 Plate 3, figures 11—13 1942a. Rhopocrinus spinosus Kirk, pp. 153, 154, pl. 16. Diagnosis.— Rhopocrinus with broadly turbinate cup, some axillaries spinose (Pl. 3, figs. 11-13); IBrr and proximal arms are much wider than distal parts of arms. Remarks.— Мо specimens were found in our study, but Kirk's (19422) specimens were examined at the U. S. National Museum. BULLETIN 330 Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Material.—USNM S-4409a (holotype), and USNM S-4409b-c (two paratypes). Superfamily AGASSIZOCRINACEA Miller, 1889 Family AMPELOCRINIDAE Kirk, 1942b Genus AMPELOCRINUS Kirk, 1942b Type species.—Ampelocrinus kaskaskiensis (Wor- then, 1882). Diagnosis.—Column round to subpentagonal with pentagonal lumen; nodals, internodals, and cirri pres- ent; crown high, distally spread or cylindrical; dorsal cup small and cyathiform; CD basal supporting cup’s single anal plate; single anal plate supports two other anal-tube plates; anal sac is short, stout, recurved; arms long, isotomous, or occasionally endotomous; two to three ІВіт per ray, each united by very close suture with narrowing at suture or middle IBr (if present) to give appearance of one larger, medially-constricted IBr (РІ. 4, figs. 1, 3); one division above primaxil typical; Brr predominantly cuneate; syzygial pairs may be pres- ent; long slender pinnules borne alternately on Brr. Remarks.—Armenocrinus Strimple and Horowitz, 1971 differs from Ampelocrinus in having a taller, more conical cup with infrabasals clearly visible from the side, and in having more primibrachials. Cymbiocrinus Kirk, 1944b, which may occur with Ampelocrinus also resembles this genus, but has shorter arms, and its infrabasals are not visible from the side. Ampelocrinus kaskaskiensis (Worthen, 1882) Plate 4, figures 1-4; Plate 12, figure 8 1882. Poteriocrinus kaskaskiensis Worthen, p. 27. 1883. Poteriocrinus kaskaskiensis Worthen. Worthen, p. 300, pl. 29, fig. 15. 1942b. Ampelocrinus kaskaskiensis (Worthen). Kirk, p. 24. 1942b. Ampelocrinus bernhardinae Kirk, pp. 25, 26, pl. 1, figs. 1, 25 19425. Ampelocrinus fimbriatus Kirk, рр. 26, 27, pl. 2, figs. 5, 6. 1973a. Ampelocrinus kaskaskiensis (Worthen). Strimple, p. 23, fig. 14. Diagnosis. — Column round with nodals, internod- als, and whorls of long, slender cirri (Pl. 4, figs. 1—4); ratio of crown height to cup height is high (20:1) (РІ. 4, fig. 2); dorsal cup cyathiform; arms long and slender, typically branching twice; two to three IBrr per ray, united by very close sutures with narrowing at suture or middle IBr (if present) to give appearance of one larger, medially-constricted IBr (PI. 4, figs. 1, 3, 4); Brr cuneate (Pl. 4, figs. 1, 3), some syzygial pairs; long, slender pinnules. Remarks.— Our examination of the types of A. bern- MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN hardinae Kirk, 1942b, and A. fimbriatus Kirk, 1942b, indicates that they represent the same species. Kirk (19425) differentiated the two species based on the shape of the dorsal cup, the nature of the arms, and the number of bifurcations in the arms. The dorsal cups of both forms appear to be cyathiform; any dif- ferences are related to the degree of compaction. The arms do not appear to differ in any way, and both type specimens were collected from the same horizon and locality in our study area. Moreover, comparison of A. bernhardinae and A. fimbriatus with A. kaskaskiensis (Worthen, 1882) indicates that they are conspecific, as suggested by Strimple (1973a). Hence, we place A. bernhardinae and A. fimbriatus in synonymy with A. kaskaskiensis, which has priority. A. mundus Kirk, 1942b, appears to be a distinctly different species. 4. mundus is a smaller form with a higher turbinate cup and high primibrachials, com- pared to the cyathiform cup and low primibrachials of A. kaskaskiensis. The arms are stouter and composed largely of long rectangular brachials compared to the more delicate arms and uniformly cuneate brachials of A. kaskaskiensis. A. spinosus Strimple, 1973a, differs from A. kaskas- kiensis principally in having high primibrachials. We have noted spinose secundibrachials, from which the species derives its name, іп the types of А. kaskas- kiensis and in our specimens. The high primibrachials are the primary distinguishing characteristics, and we wonder whether the extreme height may not be a ju- venile characteristic because the specimens are very small; in other aspects they are similar to A. kaskas- kiensis. We suggest that A. spinosus is either an earlier species closely related to А. kaskaskiensis, or possibly a juvenile form of А. kaskaskiensis, additional speci- mens and study, however, will be necessary to make this determination. One of our specimens (UK 115699) exhibits three primibrachials in each of its anterior rays. Although undescribed, this same feature was noted by us in one of Kirk's paratypes for A. fimbriatus (USNM S-4403B). This similarity suggests to us that the larger, lower primibrachial in A. kaskaskiensis, and perhaps in other species of Ampelocrinus, was derived from the fusion of at least two primibrachials. Ampelocrinus may have been derived from an earlier ampelocrinid like Ar- menocrinus, which may have two to four primibra- chials, by the fusion of primibrachials. Occurrence.— Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 3,93. Material. —UK. 115697-115699, USNM S-4402A (holotype of A. bernhardinae), USNM S-4403A (ho- lotype of A. fimbriatus), USNM 37634 (holotype of A. mundus) and USNM S-4404A-C (paratypes of A. mundus). UK 115699 is a hypotype in this study. 45 Family AGASSIZOCRINIDAE Miller, 1889 Genus ANARTIOCRINUS Kirk, 1940a Type species.— Anartiocrinus lyoni Kirk, 1940a. Diagnosis.— Column round, small; crown moder- ately tall; turbinate dorsal cup; five unfused IBB; three anal plates in cup (Pl. 4, fig. 11); anal sac obscured, probably small; one IBr per ray, which may or may not be medially constricted; all arms uniserial, short, and slender except for posterior arms of B and E rays, which are hypertrophied in length and diameter (РІ. 4, figs. 7-9); Brr quadrangular to sloping quadrangular with well-rounded exteriors. Remarks.—No other similar-appearing crinoid has two greatly enlarged arms (Text-fig. 23) with eight other normal, short and slender arms. Anartiocrinus lyoni Kirk, 1940 Plate 4, figure 7-9, 11 1940a. Anartiocrinus lyoni Kirk, pp. 47—49, pl. 1, figs. 1-5, 9. Diagnosis. — Column unknown; sub-turbinate dorsal cup; C and D RR narrower and shorter than other RR; three anal plates in cup, RX plate only partially in cup (Pl. 4, fig. 11); IBrr wider than high, straight sides, disproportionate in size (Pl. 4, fig. 8); B and E IBrr are largest; smaller arms less than two-thirds length oflarge arms (Pl. 4, figs. 7, 8); small arms composed of stout Brr, quadrangular to sloping quadrangular, maximum width 2.5 mm; two hypertrophied arms having quad- rangular Brr (Pl. 4, figs. 7-9), with a maximum width of 5.6 mm. AN а | а 2 231m э ў), «ау, © Q Зра Text-figure 23.- Hypertrophied arms in Anartiocrinus. 46 BULLETIN 330 Remarks.—The only other described species of the genus is A. maxvillensis (Whitfield, 1891) from the Maxville Limestone of Newton Township, Muskin- gum County, Ohio. A. lyoni Kirk, 1940а, is larger than А. maxvillensis, and the cup is more elongate, espe- cially in the basal portion. The right tube plate lies, in part, below the upper surface of the right posterior (C) radial, whereas in A. maxvillensis, it lies above this surface. Furthermore, the primibrachials of A. lyoni are higher and more straight-sided than those of A. maxvillensis, which are medially constricted. The cup of A. lyoni is also turbinate compared to the more campanulate cup of A. maxvillensis, and the crown of A. maxvillensis is almost always constricted at the level of the primibrachials. The overall aspect of these species, however, is such that we are tempted to place them in synonymy, es- pecially in light of specimens from a slightly older unit in which some of these characters vary. Nonetheless, specimens with dominantly **maxvillensis" character- istics (Pl. 4, fig. 10) seem to be restricted to the Gol- conda Limestone and equivalent horizons, whereas specimens with dominantly “lyoni” characteristics seem to be restricted to the Glen Dean Limestone and equivalent horizons; however, few specimens are available for study. It may be that more specimens will reveal the two species to be mere intraspecific varia- tions. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Localities 4, 5. Material.—UK 115843 and 115844, hypotypes, USNM S-2788 (holotype), USNM S-2786 (paratype), USNM S-2787 (paratype), and USNM S-5837 (para- type). Genus AGASSIZOCRINUS Owen and Shumard, 1852a Type species.— Agassizocrinus conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852a. Diagnosis. — Column always absent in adult stage; five IBB fused into a solidly calcified IB cone, visible from side (Pl. 4, fig. 16); three to four anal plates in cup (РІ. 4, fig. 17); ventral sac unknown; 10 uniserial arms branch only once on first IBr; Brr mostly quad- rangular; small pinnules, closely packed. Agassizocrinus conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852 Plate 4, figures 16—19 1852a. Agassizocrinus conicus Owen and Shumard, p. 93, pl. 2, fig. 6. 1926. Agassizocrinus conicus Owen and Shumard. Springer, pp. 53, 59, 63, pl. 15, figs. 1-4. 1965. Agassizocrinus cf. A. conicus Owen and Shumard. Horowitz, p- 36, pl. 4, figs T; 2. Diagnosis. — All trace of column absent; dorsal cup strictly conical and typically very elongate (Pl. 4, figs. 16, 18); ratio of IB-cone height to height of dorsal cup is greater than 0.5; distal surface of IB cone relatively flat, central interior invagination round (РІ. 4, figs. 18, 19). Remarks.— According to Ettensohn (1975b), the in- frabasal cone of A. conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852a, is more conical and its distal surface is flatter (Pl. 4, figs. 18, 19) than other species (e.g., А. cf. A. dactyli- formis Shumard, 1853; Pl. 4, figs. 14, 15). The central cavity is round (PI. 4, fig. 19), compared to the cavities of other species which are star-shaped (Pl. 4, figs. 15). It is therefore possible to identify А. conicus by its infrabasal cone alone. There are several beds within the Sloans Valley member that could be considered Agassizocrinus- and Pterotocrinus-plate biorudites; bedding surfaces are composed almost entirely of Agassizocrinus infrabasal cones and the tegminal spines of Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1859. In these beds, all plates are dis- associated and concentrated, suggesting a high-energy environment. In some other beds, four cups in various states of preservation were found. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Middle and Up- per Chesterian). Locality 3 (infrabasal cones found at most localities). Material.—UK 115847-115853, 115935. UK 115847, 115850, and 115853 are hypotypes in this study. Agassizocrinus cf. A. dactyliformis Shumard, 1853 Plate 4, figures 14, 15 1850. Agassizocrinites dactyliformis Troost, p. 420 [nomen nudum]. 1853, 1854. Agassizocrinus dactyliformis Shumard, p. 173, pl. 1, Tip. 7, 1855. Astylocrinus laevis Roemer, p. 229, pl. 4, figs. 13a-d. 1965. Agassizocrinus dactyliformis Shumard. Horowitz, p. 38, pl. 4, figs. 3, 4. Diagnosis. — No column present; dorsal cup broadly rounded, ovoid; IBB completely fused into a solid cone, occupying one-third or more of dorsal cup; strongly outward-sloping upper distal surface (Pl. 4, fig. 14) on IB cone, with a star-shaped interior central invagina- tion (Pl. 4, fig. 15). Remarks.— According to Ettensohn (19755), the in- dividual cones of A. dactyliformis Shumard, 1853 [= A. laevis (Roemer, 1855)], cannot be differentiated from some of the individual cones of A. lobatus Springer, 1926; complete cups are necessary for certain identi- fication. Nonetheless, lobate cones that characterize at least some forms of A. lobatus have not been found in our sections, and field experience leads us to believe that А. lobatus occurs no higher than the Golconda Limestone and its equivalents. For these reasons, we MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 47 suggest that our specimens probably are A. dactylifor- mis; the infrabasal cones certainly compare favorably. The infrabasal cones of A. dactyliformis are more broadly conical (such as in A. cf. A. dactyliformis; PI. 4, fig. 14) than the steeply conical cones (РІ. 4, figs. 16, 18) of A. conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852а. The distal surface of A. dactyliformis cones slopes more abruptly outward and the interbasal ridges are high and well defined (as in A. cf. A. dactyliformis; Pl. 4, fig. 14). This contrasts markedly with the relatively flat distal surface and subtle interbasal ridges (Pl. 4, fig. 18) of A. conicus. The cones of А. dactyliformis also have a star-shaped central invagination (as in A. cf. A. dactyliformis; Pl. 4, fig. 15) compared to a round central invagination (Pl. 4, fig. 19) in А. conicus. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Lower and Mid- dle Chesterian). Locality 3. Material. — UK 115554 and 115568, the latter a hy- potype in this paper. Superfamily DECADOCRINACEA Bather, 1890 Family DECADOCRINIDAE Bather, 1890 Genus RAMULOCRINUS Laudon, Parks and Spreng, 1952 Type species.— Ramulocrinus nigelensis Laudon, Parks, and Spreng, 1952. Diagnosis.— Cup widely flaring (РІ. 4, figs. 21-23); IBB may or may not be visible from side; three anal plates in cup (РІ. 4, fig. 21); arms do not divide above the first IBr; the А ray may or may not be divided; arms uniserial with zig-zag appearance; pinnules large. Remarks.— Ramulocrinus differs from Decadocrinus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1880, in number of primi- brachials; Ramulocrinus has one per ray (Pl. 4, figs. 22, 23), whereas Decadocrinus has two. Ramulocrinus milleri (Wetherby, 1881) Plate 4, figures 20—23 1881. Poteriocrinus milleri Wetherby, p. 330, pl. 9, figs. 12, 13. 1886. Decadocrinus milleri (Wetherby). Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 239. Diagnosis. — Column round, does not fill basal in- vagination; crown small and cylindrical; IBB small and nearly concealed by column; all plates of dorsal cup, including anal plates, exhibit tubercular ornamenta- tion (Pl. 4, fig. 20); anal sac cylindrical(?), two-thirds height of crown, small vertical spine on top; 10 arms, two per ray; one IBr per ray, higher than wide, con- stricted medially (Pl. 4, figs. 21-23); Brr higher than wide, zig-zag appearance (Pl. 4, figs. 22, 23), and in some specimens, may be spiny; stout pinnules borne on alternate sides of succeeding Brr. Remarks.— Ramulocrinus differs from Decadocrinus by having one primibrachial per ray instead of two. Because this species has only one primibrachial per ray, we place it in Ramulocrinus. Ramulocrinus was likely derived from Decadocrinus through fusion of the primibrachials. This derivation is suggested by one of our specimens (UK 115690) that has relict sutures in the medial constriction on two primibrachials (РІ. 4, fig. 23). Laudon, Parks, and Spreng (1952), who erected the genus Ramulocrinus, failed to include this species therein. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Localities 3, 5. Material.—UK 115682-115694 and 115696, to- potypes, and UK 115695. UK 115685, 115687, and 115690 also are hypotypes. Superfamily CROMYOCRINACEA Bather, 1890 Family PHANOCRINIDAE Knapp, 1969 Genus PHANOCRINUS Kirk, 1937 Type species.— Zeacrinus formosus Worthen, 1873. Diagnosis. — Low, bowl-shaped dorsal cup (РІ. 5, figs. 1—6, 8); basal invagination involving IBB and portions of BB (РІ. 5, fig. 7); cup may or may not be constricted at top; RR generally touching basal plane and curving upward from it; two to three anal plates in cup; anal sac (Pl. 5, fig. 8) terminated with single, elongate spine; nine to ten arms; first IBr axillary in all rays, except the anterior ray in nine-armed forms. Remarks.— We do not agree with the division of Phanocrinus into two separate genera by Burdick and Strimple (1969) and Moore, Lane, and Strimple (1978). They have retained the name Phanocrinus for those forms with radials that curve inward at the superior end; those forms with vertical radials are called Pen- taramicrinus Sutton and Winkler, 1940. Previously, Pentaramicrinus included forms with only five arms. Burdick and Strimple (1969) believed that the curva- ture of the radials was more significant than the num- ber of arms. They included seven species previously included in Phanocrinus (all with more than five arms) within the genus Pentaramicrinus because of their ver- tical radials. According to them, this division leaves Phanocrinus with only those species containing 10 arms. However, Burdick and Strimple (1969) also included Р. maniformis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) and Р. bellulus (Miller and Gurley, 1894) in Phanocrinus. These species very possibly have only nine arms. The original description of P. maniformis indicated nine arms; however, the holotype is missing. In P. bellulus, the lower portion of the anterior ray is not visible, but there appear to be nine arms distally. We believe that all nine- and 10-armed forms should be included in the genus Phanocrinus. 48 BULLETIN 330 Phanocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) Plate 5, figures 1-8 1847. Cyathocrinus maniformis Yandell and Shumard, p. 25, fig. 2. 1855. Poteriocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard). Shumard, przy. 1858. Zeacrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard). Hall, p. 682, pl. 23 19.8. 1873. Zeacrinus formosus Worthen, p. 549, pl. 21, fig. 2. 1879. Scytalocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard). Wachs- muth and Springer, p. 340. 1886. Eupachycrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard). Wachs- muth and Springer, p. 173. 1894. Zeacrinus bellulus Miller and Gurley, p. 34, pl. 3, fig. 8. 1894. Zeacrinus cylindricus Miller and Gurley, p. 38, pl. 3, figs. 19- sal 1937. Phanocrinus formosus (Worthen). Kirk, p. 603, pl. 84, figs. 1,22: 1939. Phanocrinus cylindricus (Miller and Gurley). Sutton and Ha- gan, p. 83. 1939. Scytalocrinus? bellulus (Miller and Gurley). Sutton and Ha- gan, p. 83. 1940. Phanocrinus formosus (Worthen). Sutton and Winkler, p. 553, pl. 68, figs. 17-19. 1940. Phanocrinus cylindricus (Miller and Gurley). Sutton and Winkler, pp. 553, 554, pl. 66, figs. 11, 12. 1940. Phanocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard). Sutton and Winkler, p. 554, pl. 67, figs. 3, 4. 1940. Phanocrinus bellulus (Miller and Gurley). Sutton and Wink- ler, pp. 554, 555, pl. 66, figs. 6, 7. 1940. Phanocrinus compactus Sutton and Winkler, p. 555, pl. 67, figs. 7, 8. 1940. Phanocrinus inflatoramus Sutton and Winkler, р. 555, 556, pl. 67, figs. 14, 15. 1951a. Phanocrinus cylindricus (Miller and Gurley). Strimple, pp. 291g. Fi. 1965. Phanocrinus compactus Sutton and Winkler. Horowitz, p. 32, pl. 3, figs. 7-9. 1965. Phanocrinus cf. P. formosus (Worthen). Horowitz, pp. 32, 33, pl. 3, figs. 13-15. 1969. Phanocrinus bellulus (Miller and Gurley). Burdick and Strim- ple, pp. 4, 9. 1969. Pentaramicrinus compactus (Sutton and Winkler). Burdick and Strimple, pp. 4, 9. 1969. Phanocrinus cylindricus (Miller and Gurley). Burdick and Strimple, pp. 4, 9. 1969. Phanocrinus formosus (Worthen). Burdick and Strimple, pp. 4, 9. 1969. Pentaramicrinus inflatoramus (Sutton and Winkler). Burdick and Strimple, pp. 4, 9. 1969. Phanocrinus maniformis (Yandell and Shumard). Burdick and Strimple, pp. 4, 9. 1973b. Phanocrinus bellulus (Miller and Gurley). Strimple and Moore, p. 5, figs. 2(1–3), 3(4). 1973b. Phanocrinus sp. cf. P. formosus (Worthen). Strimple and Moore, p. 5, fig. 4. 1973b. Phanocrinus sp. cf. P. cylindricus (Miller and Gurley). Strim- ple and Moore, p. 5, fig. 3(1-3). 1973b. Phanocrinus planus Strimple and Moore, p. 6, fig. 6 (1—6). Diagnosis. — Column round (PI. 5, fig. 1); dorsal cup moderately low, basin-shaped (Pl. 5, figs. 1—6, 8); IBB small but not hidden by column (Pl. 5, fig. 7); BB visible from side (Pl. 5, figs. 1, 2, 5); nine to 10 arms, long, uniserial, about eight times longer than height of dorsal cup; IBrr one per ray (except in anterior ray in nine-armed forms); Brr short, quadrangular, and bear short, stout pinnules. Remarks.— Having examined the many species of Phanocrinus described from the eastern Midcontinent, we are convinced that many of the species are con- specific. Examination of these species leads us to place six of the species in synonymy with P. maniformis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847). Even though P. mani- formis was poorly described and illustrated, there can be little doubt that the type is the same as the more commonly cited P. cylindricus (Miller and Gurley, 1894). The cup is low and basin-shaped with distal parts of the basals visible in side view. The arms have the same sub-fusiform shape and are composed of uni- serially arranged, quadrangular brachials. The two species are certainly synonymous, but P. maniformis has priority. Phanocrinus bellulus (Miller and Gurley, 1894) and P. inflatoramus Sutton and Winkler, 1940, are two species that differ so slightly from the concept of P. maniformis (or P. cylindricus) that the differences are not really significant, in our view. In P. inflatoramus, the primibrachials are extremely wide compared to their height, and the arms are unusually inflated. We believe that these variations are intraspecific, and al- though not common in our assemblage, some of our specimens exhibit these traits. P. bellulus, on the other hand, is characterized by high primibrachials and a deep basal concavity; again, these characters, which we deem to be intraspecific, occur in some of the speci- mens from our assemblage. Phanocrinus formosus (Worthen, 1873) is another commonly cited species, but it is based only on a dorsal cup. According to Sutton and Winkler (1940), P. for- mosus is differentiated from P. maniformis (or P. cy- lindricus) on the basis of granulated plates and basals that are not depressed as they join the infrabasals. The presence of granules on the plates is a product of pres- ervation; some of our specimens from the same ho- rizon exhibit them, whereas others do not. The de- pressed nature of the basals is another trait that we deem to be intraspecific. Again, some of our specimens from the same horizon and locality exhibit variations on this trait. Phanocrinus compactus Sutton and Winkler, 1940, on the other hand, was characterized as a small species with closely-knit sutures and an unusually large anal X plate. The anal interray is highly variable in this species; hence, the unusually large anal X plate does not seem significant. The small size, compact nature, and well-closed sutures are characteristics that we have | | | | | | | MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 49 commonly observed in our smaller specimens, and for this reason we suggest that P. compactus is merely a juvenile form of P. maniformis. Although we have not examined the types, P. planus Strimple and Moore, 1973b, is almost certainly con- specific with P. maniformis. The distinguishing planate base is no more planate than the bases of many other variants included in P. maniformis. Phanocrinus maniformis and all its variants, how- ever, differ markedly from four other common Ches- terian species. P. fragosus Sutton and Winkler, 1940, is one of the earliest species (from the Early Chesterian Renault Fm.) and is characterized by small size and delicate construction; one or two primibrachials may occur. We have noticed that an increased number of primibrachials and a small, delicate construction char- acterize the early species of this and some other com- mon Chesterian genera. P. nitidus (Miller and Gurley, 1894) has an unusually constricted calyx at the level of the primibrachials and has short, stout arms com- posed of irregularly-rectangular to cuneate brachials. P. parvaramus Sutton and Winkler, 1940, is charac- terized by an extremely low, broad, saucer-shaped dor- sal cup, relatively short arms, and tumid plates. P. cooksoni Laudon, 1941, has more rounded petaliform basals compared to the angular basals of P. manifor- mis. The arms are also stouter and taper more rapidly. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 1, 3, 5. Material. ОК 115585, 115702-115788, 116070; UK 115741, 115749, 115750, 115753, and 115786 are hypotypes. Phanocrinus parvaramus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 Plate 5, figures 9—11 1940. Phanocrinus parvaramus Sutton and Winkler, p. 556, pl. 67, figs. 9, 10. 1940. Agenaracrinus parvabasalis Sutton and Winkler, p. 565, pl. 68, figs. 3, 4. 1948. Phanocrinus alexanderi Strimple, pp. 490—493, pl. 77, figs. 1—6. 1965. Phanocrinus parvaramus Sutton and Winkler. Horowitz, pp. 30, 31, pl. 3, figs. 1-3. Phanocrinus parvaramus Sutton and Winkler. Burdick and Strimple, pp. 3, 4. 1973b. Phanocrinus parviramus [sic] Sutton and Winkler. Strimple and Moore, p. 2, fig. 1, nos. 1, 2. 1969. Diagnosis. — Low, saucer-shaped dorsal cup (РІ. 5, fig. 10); smooth, slightly tumid plates (Pl. 5, figs. 10, 11); IBB largely hidden by column (PI. 5, figs. 9, 11); BB slightly tumid, distalmost quarter visible from side; RR much more tumid than BB, three-fourths as high as wide, occupy almost entire height of cup. Anal area variable, one to three plates in cup; RA large, fairly tumid; anal X may or may not touch CD basal; 10 short uniserial arms, constricted at IBrr (Pl. 5, fig. 10); Brr rounded, quadrangular to slightly cuneate. Remarks.— P. parvaramus Sutton and Winkler, 1 940, is an easily-recognized species whose type was col- lected from the Sloans Valley locality. The plates are much more tumid than most species of Phanocrinus, and the dorsal cup is low, broad, and saucer-shaped (Pl. 5, fig. 10) compared to the higher, bowl-shaped cups of other species. The basals are barely visible because of the large size of the radials (Pl. 5, fig. 10). The arms are relatively small and may exhibit a pe- culiar mid-length constriction (Pl. 5, fig. 10), although this constriction is not universal among specimens. The anal interray is highly variable in this species, and one to three anal plates may occur in the cup. We have placed P. alexanderi Strimple, 1948, in synonymy with P. parvaramus, because in nearly every aspect Strimple's species is identical to P. parvaramus. Strimple (1948) cited as differences the presence of slightly cuneate brachials and the height (distalmost) at which the arms begin to taper. Our specimens and the holotype exhibit both traits. Although Burdick and Strimple (1969) suggested that P. parvaramus and P. cylindricus (Р. maniformis) may be synonymous, our examination of the material does not support this contention. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle and Up- per Chesterian). Localities 2, 3, 5. Material. UK 115789-115796. UK 115789, 115790, and 115792-115796 are topotypes, whereas UK 115796 and UK 115794 also are hypotypes. Genus PENTARAMICRINUS Sutton and Winkler, 1940 Type species. — Cromyocrinus gracilis Wetherby, 1880. Diagnosis.— Tall, cylindrical crown (РІ. 5, figs. 12, 13); bowl-shaped dorsal cup, not constricted at summit (Pl. 5, figs. 12, 13); anal plates variable; anal sac tu- bular, composed of small polygonal plates, two rows of spines at top; five uniserial arms. Remarks.— Pentaramicrinus previously included only five-armed forms (Sutton and Winkler, 1940), but Burdick and Strimple (1969) revised the genus to in- clude all species of Phanocrinus Kirk, 1937 that have vertical radials. The number of arms was not consid- ered to be significant by them; hence, the genus Pen- taramicrinus contained nine- and 10-armed forms as well as five-armed forms. We believe that in this case, the number of arms is far more significant than the orientation of the radials. Therefore, we use Pentar- amicrinus in the sense that Sutton and Winkler in- tended, for five-armed phanocrinids. 50 BULLETIN 330 Pentaramicrinus gracilis (Wetherby, 1880) Plate 5, figures 12, 13, Text-figure 24 1880. Cromyocrinus gracilis Wetherby, р. 248, pl. 16, figs. 2а-е. 1886. Eupachycrinus gracilis (Wetherby). Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 249. 1895. Zeacrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, p. 47, pl. 4, figs. 1215: 1937. Phanocrinus gracilis (Wetherby). Kirk, p. 606, pl. 84, fig. 13. 1940. Pentaramicrinus gracilis (Wetherby). Sutton and Winkler, pp. 558, 559, pl. 66, figs. 14, 15. 1940. Pentaramicrinus magniradianalis Sutton and Winkler, p. 559, pl. 68, figs. 24, 25. 1940. Pentaramicrinus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley). Sutton and Winkler, p. 559, pl. 66, figs. 1, 2. 1969. Pentaramicrinus gracilis (Wetherby). Burdick and Strimple, pr oe Diagnosis. —IBB hidden by column; variable anal- plate arrangement; five long, stout arms, which are 10 times higher than the height of the dorsal cup (Pl. 5, figs. 12, 13); Brr quadrangular, alternately bearing stout pinnules (Pl. 5, fig. 13). Remarks.—' This specimen is one of three Penta- ramicrinus species originally described from Pulaski County, Kentucky. Burdick and Strimple (1969) con- sidered all three to be synonymous with P. gracilis; they differed only in anal-plate arrangement (Text-fig. 24), which in many phanocrinid species is known to vary. We agree that all three species are probably con- specific. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Middle and Up- per Chesterian). Locality 1. Material. — UK. 115797 and 115798 (topotypes). Family EUPACHYCRINIDAE Miller, 1889 Genus EUPACHYCRINUS Meek and Worthen, 1865 1865. Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen, p. 159. 1940. Intermediacrinus Sutton and Winkler, pp. 559—561. 1943. Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen. Moore and Laudon, p. 62. 1943. Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen. Bassler and Moodey, p. 470. 1969. Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen. Burdick and Strimple, роб: 1969. Intermediacrinus Sutton and Winkler. Burdick and Strimple, pp. 7, 8. 1978. Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen. Moore, Lane, and Strim- ple, p. T690. 1978. Intermediacrinus Sutton and Winkler. Moore, Lane, and Strimple, p. T690. Type species.— Graphiocrinus quatuordecembra- chialis Lyon, 1857. Diagnosis. — Column round with nodals and inter- nodals; crown generally elongate, tapering distally (PI. 5, figs. 14, 15); cup low, bowl-shaped (PI. 5, figs. 14, 15) with deep basal invagination (Pl. 5, fig. 17); two to three anal plates in cup; elongate anal sac terminated with single, elongate spine; 13 to 15 arms, biserial (PI. 5, figs. 14-16); first IBr axillary in all rays (Pl. 5, figs. 14-16); first IIBr axillary on anterior side of B, C, D, and E rays (Pl. 5, fig. 15); second IIBr may ог may not be axillary on posterior side of C ray; two arms in A ray, three arms in B, D, and E rays, and three or four arms in C ray. Remarks.—The nature and histories of the genera Eupachycrinus and Intermediacrinus have been inex- tricably interwoven since the genus Zntermediacrinus was defined from E. asperatus Worthen, 1882, by Sut- ton and Winkler (1940). We suggest that the two genera be placed in synonymy. Intermediacrinus was origi- nally defined from E. asperatus based on differences in the number of anal plates. However, recognition of much variation in this character prompted Moore and Laudon (1943) and Bassler and Moodey (1943) to place the two genera in synonymy. Strimple (1961), however, accepted Intermediacrinus as a valid genus because the arm structure in the type species, J. asperatus, differed from arm structure typical of Eupachycrinus. Specifi- cally, Intermediacrinus was purported to exhibit four arms in the right posterior ray, whereas Eupachycrinus typically exhibits three arms in this ray. No major differences occur in the anal interray of the two forms. Furthermore, Burdick and Strimple (1969) indicated that Intermediacrinus was found only in Lower Ches- terian horizons. In our study area, however, we have a single specimen that contradicts this. In our Middle Chesterian horizon, a single 15-armed specimen (four arms in right posterior ray) was found (Pl. 5, fig. 15); it is identical in every other way with three other 14- armed forms (PI. 5, fig. 14) referred to Eupachycrinus. Although our assemblage (four specimens) 1s small, the similarity of our specimens, except for the number of arms in the 15-armed form, and the fact that they occur in the same horizon, leads us to conclude that the number of arms also 1s probably a variable trait. For this reason, we choose to place Eupachycrinus and In- termediacrinus in synonymy. In our examination of various species of Еирасћу- crinus, we have noted two major groups that within themselves appear to be synonymous. Е. quatuorde- cembrachialis (Lyon, 1857), E. asperatus Worthen, ; сё ане аўн в Е : A B C D Text-figure 24.— Anal-plate arrangements in Pentaramicrinus. А. P. gracilis, B. P. pulaskiensis, n. comb.; C. P. magnaradianalis; D. specimen of P. gracilis found in this study. B = basal; RA = radianal; X — anal-X. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 51 1882, and possibly E. davidsoni Burdick and Strimple, 1969, appear to represent a single species characterized by a crown with its greatest width at the level of the primibrachials. E. boydii Meek and Worthen, 1870, E. spartarius Miller, 1879, E. germanus Miller, 1879, E. durabilis (Miller and Gurley, 1895), E. irregularis Sut- ton and Winkler, 1940, and E. variabilis (Sutton and Winkler, 1940) appear to represent another species characterized by a crown with its greatest width at the level of the radials. This species will be described in the following section. Eupachycrinus boydii Meek and Worthen, 1870 Plate 5, figures 14-17 1870. Eupachycrinus boydii Meek and Worthen, p. 30. 1873. Eupachycrinus boydii Meek and Worthen. Meek and Wor- then, p. 554, pl. 21, fig. 6. 1879. Eupachycrinus spartarius Miller, p. 38, pl. 8, fig. 2. 1879. Eupachycrinus germanus Miller, p. 40, pl. 8, fig. 3. 1895. Zeacrinus durabilis Miller and Gurley, p. 48, pl. 4, figs. 14, 157 1940. Eupachycrinus irregularis Sutton and Winkler, p. 551, pl. 66, figs. 8-10. 1940. Intermediacrinus variabilis Sutton and Winkler, p. 562, pl. 67, fig. 11. 1965. Eupachycrinus germanus Miller. Horowitz, p. 34, pl. 3, figs. 4—6. 1965. Eupachycrinus spartarius Miller. Horowitz, pp. 34, 35, pl. 3, figs. 10-12. 1965. Eupachycrinus boydii Meek and Worthen. Horowitz, pp. 35- 37, pl. 3, figs. 16-18. Diagnosis.— Greatest width of crown generally with- in dorsal cup; IBrr, IIBrr, and dorsal cup slightly to moderately tumid (Pl. 5, figs. 14—16). Remarks.— The five species listed above are placed in synonymy with E. boydii. E. durabilis was differ- entiated based on its small size and short arms; it prob- ably represents a juvenile (Burdick and Strimple, 1969). E. germanus is a small form that was differentiated on the shape of its crown, whereas E. irregularis was de- fined on its large size and the irregular development of 13 arms instead of 14. E. spartarius was character- ized Бу the shape and size of its anal plates, and Е. variabilis was defined both on the shape of its dorsal cup and the nature of its anal plates. We believe that most of the above discriminating characteristics represent intraspecific variations or on- togenetic variations found in juveniles. Moreover, four of the five species placed in synonymy (Е. durabilis, E. germanus, E. irregularis, and E. spartarius) were originally described from the Sloans Valley locality. Excepting the intraspecific and ontogenetic variations, we believe that all these species are generally so similar in appearance and occurrence as to warrant synonymy. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 1, 3, 5. Material.—UK 115799, 115800-115802, all hypo- types. Subclass FLEXIBILIA Zittel, 1879 Order TAXOCRINIDA Springer, 1913 Superfamily TAXOCRINACEA Angelin, 1878 Family SYNEROCRINIDAE Jaeckel, 1918 Genus ONYCHOCRINUS Lyon and Casseday, 1860 Type species. — Onychocrinus exsculptus Lyon and Casseday, 1860. Diagnosis. — Round column widening toward cup (РІ. 6, figs. 1-4); IBB low but not hidden by column (РІ. 6, figs. 3, 4); C-D basal elongate; RA in upper oblique position between C-D basal and C radial or absent; three to six IBrr per ray (Pl. 6, fig. 1); arms divide heterotomously after first dichotomy (РІ. 6, figs. 1, 2» 10 main-arm trunks, rays widely separated above IBrr. Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895 Plate 6, figures 1—4 1894. ?Onychocrinus parvus Miller and Gurley, p. 52, pl. 4, fig. 5. 1895. Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, p. 40, pl. 4, figs. 132; 1920. Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley. Springer, pp. 421, 437, pl. 74, figs. 1-10; pl. 75, figs. 15a—b. 1965. Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley. Horowitz, pp. 39, 40, pl. 4, figs. 11, 12. Diagnosis.— Column thicker than that of other species, with projecting, convex nodals (Pl. 6, fig. 3); crown large (Pl. 6, figs. 1, 2); one large iBr between each ray overlain distally by perisome; three IBrr per ray (Pl. 6, fig. 1); two to three IIBrr before first ramule (Pl. 6, fig. 1); ramules extend almost at right angles from the arms every two to three Brr (Pl. 6, figs. 1, 2); axillary Brr nodose to spiny, arms divergent; no iBr connecting ramules with arms; rays deeply rounded, Brr equidimensional. Remarks.— Onychocrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895, is a species that belongs to the О. ra- mulosus group of Springer (1920), and it is similar to other species in this group. In general, the arms of O. pulaskiensis are more divergent than the arms of other species in the group, and no interbrachials connect the ramules with the arms. O. pulaskiensis differs from O. ramulosus (Lyon and Casseday, 1859) in the presence of fewer and higher divergent ramules, in the absence of interbrachial plates between ramules and the main arm, and in the presence of spinose axillaries. O. dis- tensus Worthen, 1882, 1s an earlier species with more- widely spaced ramules and four primibrachials, rather than the three that characterize O. pulaskiensis. O. 52 BULLETIN 330 magnus Worthen, 1875, has three to four primibra- chials and has a greater number of smaller ramules in clusters. O. liddelensis Wright, 1954, and O. wrighti Springer, 1920, are both British forms that have pus- tulose ornamentation and lack spinose axillaries. O. parvus Miller and Gurley, 1894, is a juvenile with gen- eralized, indistinguishable characters; it comes from the same locality as the holotype of O. pulaskiensis. As suggested by Springer (1920) and Horowitz (1965), the two forms probably represent the same species. Nonetheless, even though O. parvus has priority, it is technically a species inquierenda because of its indis- tinguishable traits, and is not available as the species name. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Locality 3. Material. — ОК 115855-115863 (topotypes). Family TAXOCRINIDAE Angelin, 1878 Genus TAXOCRINUS Phillips, in Morris, 1843 Type species.— Cyathocrinus? macrodactylus Phil- lips, 1841. Diagnosis. — Column enlarges proximally (Pl. 6, fig. 7); IBB low, sometimes hidden by column; C-D basal elongate; RA in upper oblique position if present; ex- centric anal opening at end of anal tube; anal tube formed by extension of perisome (Pl. 6, fig. 8), sup- ported by vertical series of anal plates; tegmen com- posed of calcareous spicules embedded in pliant mem- brane; ambulacra extend from arms, between paired orals, to the open mouth; iBrr variable in number, but usually numerous (Pl. 6, fig. 5); rays do not abut above interray areas; two to three IBrr (РІ. 6, figs. 5-7); arms are divergent and dichotomous, branching isotomous- ly above main dichotom (PI. 6, figs. 6, 7). Taxocrinus whitfieldi (Hall, 1858) Plate 6, figures 5-8 1858. Forbesiocrinus whitfieldi Hall, p. 632, text-fig. 104. 1860. Forbesiocrinus cestriensis Hall, p. 68. 1873. Onychocrinus whitfieldi (Hall). Meek and Worthen, p. 552, pl. 20, 00.9. 1879b. Forbesiocrinus parvus Wetherby, p. 138, pl. 11, figs. 4a-b. 1895. Taxocrinus wetherbyi Miller and Gurley, p. 41, pl. 4, figs. 3— 5: 1920. Taxocrinus whitfieldi (Hall). Springer, pp. 382, 408, pl. 60, figs. 1-11. 1973. Taxocrinus cestrienis (Hall). Burdick and Strimple, pp. 227, 228, text-figs. la—3, text-figs. 26-е. Diagnosis. — Column enlarged proximally, com- posed of very thin plates proximally, thicker plates distally (РІ. 6, fig. 7); medium-size species with a broad, short crown (Pl. 6, figs. 6, 7); inward curvature starts at IVBrr (Pl. 5, figs. 6, 7); height-to-width ratio about 1:2 in mature specimens; calyx continuous to level of IIBrr except on posterior side (Pl. 6, figs. 5-7); IBB low; BB large and may contact IBrr in some interrays; two to three IBrr per ray, typically three (Pl. 6, figs. 5— 7); one to three IIBrr per ray, typically two and three; IBrr and IIBrr wholly incorporated into calyx wall (Pl. 6, figs. 5-7); two to three IIIBrr in inner arms and three to four in outer arms (Pl. 6, figs. 6, 7); approximately four bifurcations per ray, fourth occurs near inward flexure of arms (Pl. 6, figs. 6, 7); free arms small and delicate; suture between Brr sinuous; iBrr only slightly depressed and larger in lower three levels; fourth-level Brr are smaller and connected to perisome. Remarks.— Taxocrinus whitfieldi (Hall, 1858) 1s one ofa group of four closely-related species also including T. giddingsei (Hall, 1858), T. shumardianus (Hall, 1858), and T. huntsvillae Springer, 1920. T. giddingsei is easily distinguished from the other three species by the presence of strong plates on either side of the anal tube. The remaining three species exhibit a perisome of very small plates surrounding the tube. However, these three species are more difficult to differentiate from each other, and 7. whitfieldi may share charac- teristics with all of them. The crown of Т. shumardianus is generally smaller, interbrachials are fewer in number, and the basals make contact with the first interbrachials in all rays. Т. hunts- villae, on the other hand, has narrower, more elevated rays rather than the low, rounded rays of T. shumar- dianus and T. whitfieldi; like T. shumardianus, basals make contact with the first interbrachials. Taxocrinus whitfieldi is generally a larger form with a low, broad crown, which exhibits a larger number of more robust interbrachial plates; the anal tube 1s sur- rounded by perisome. In some specimens, basals in up to three interrays may make contact with first inter- brachials. The other three species generally have three secundibrachials per ray, whereas Т. whitfieldi typically exhibits only two, although a few rays in three of our specimens exhibit three secundibrachials. This same character was used by Burdick and Strimple (1973) to resurrect the species 7. cestriensis (Hall, 1860). Ac- cording to Burdick and Strimple (1973), forms placed in T. whitfieldi with one or more rays exhibiting three secundibrachials should be placed in the species T. cestriensis. However, we follow the practice of Springer (1920) and place T. cestriensis in synonymy with T. whitfieldi because our assemblage shows both varia- tions, leading us to conclude that they are intraspecific. Throughout the species as a whole, nearly any com- bination of two to three primibrachials, one to three secundibrachials, and contact of up to three basals with the first interbrachials, may occur. In effect, this sug- | | i | MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 53 gests that the species was very flexible for these char- acteristics, and that any use of combinations of these characters may be inadequate for species differentia- tion. Our assemblage of 7. whitfieldi supports the obser- vations of Burdick and Strimple (1971) and Horowitz and Strimple (1974) regarding a systematic reduction in the number of secundibrachials through time. Most of our specimens exhibit only the two secundibrachials characteristic of the late Middle Chesterian popula- tions referred to 7. whitfieldi. While we believe that specimens with combinations of two and three secun- dibrachials, referred to 7. cestriensis, are intermediate between 7. shumardianus (mostly three secundibra- chials) and 7. whitfieldi (mostly two secundibrachials), we do not believe that the differences between T. ces- triensis and T. whitfieldi are sufficient to warrant two separate species. Even іп our assemblage, specimens referable to 7. cestriensis are present, and we think they are little more than intraspecific variants. Clearly, the above evolutionary trend is apparent in assem- blages of specimens, and hence we can designate our assemblage 7. whitfieldi despite the presence of a few forms that considered in isolation might be referred to T. cestriensis. However, what happens when one is not dealing with an assemblage, but rather one or two spec- imens? Then one 15 reduced to reliance on some ar- bitrarily-defined number of secundibrachials, which we know may vary, or worse yet, on stratigraphy, to define taxa. We believe that some more substantial differences, such as those found in 7. shumardianus (number of interbrachials and relationship between basals and in- trabrachials) are necessary to separate the species. However, because the number of secundibrachials may have biostratigraphic value, workers may find it useful to continue using the names *'cestriensis" and *whit- Лей? within the species Т. whitfieldi, as varieties or subspecies. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 3, 5, 6. Material.— UK 115577, 115864, 115866-115874, 115876-115887; UK 115577, 115881, and 115885 аге hypotypes. Subclass CAMERATA Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885 Order MONOBATHRIDA Moore and Laudon, 1943 Suborder COMPSOCRININA Ubaghs, 1978 Superfamily HEXACRINITACEA Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885 Family DICHOCRINIDAE Miller, 1889 Subfamily TALAROCRININAE Ubaghs, 1953 Genus PTEROTOCRINUS Lyon and Casseday, 1859 Type species.—Asterocrinus capitalis Lyon, 1857. Diagnosis. — Column round, small; dorsal cup sau- cer- to bowl-shaped, wider than high, tegmen pyram- idal, higher than cup; two BB, pentagonal in outline and B circlet excavated at C-D side for the single anal plate and on anterior side for anterior A radial; one small, triangular IBr occurs on each R and may be hidden from external view; each IBr supports two ax- Шагу ПВіт; these IIBrr meet above IBr, rest laterally on К; ПВіт support two IIIBrr, one above does not touch R, whereas outer one rests laterally on R. Pri- manal or tergal typically elongate, smaller than RR. Species of the genus typically have 20 short, biserial arms; each ray, consisting of four or six arms, is divided into two groups by one of five tegminal appendages or “wing plates". Nearly central anus surrounded by many tiny plates that form small protuberance or cone; large oral plates rest directly upon uppermost iambb; pos- terior oral plate wedged between other four. Remarks.— The best known features of Pterotocrinus are the tegminal appendages called “wing plates". They show great variation in form and size between species and even within single assemblages. Even though we have placed in synonymy all the form species based on wing plate shape and size, workers may find it useful to continue using the various names applied to indi- vidual forms of wing plates within the two species we recognize, perhaps like varieties, because some of the plate forms appear to be stratigraphically restricted. These wing plates are the most common remains of Pterotocrinus as a fossil. In fact, we have found some beds composed almost wholly of Prerotocrinus wing plates. The great variation in wing plates and their rapid evolutionary changes have been utilized by stra- tigraphers to differentiate and identify the Lower and Middle Chesterian formations in the Illinois Basin (Sutton, 1934) and Middle Chesterian formations in the Appalachian Basin in Kentucky. Pterotocrinus ap- pears to be restricted to the Chesterian Series, first appearing in the Renault Limestone (lowermost Ches- terian) and continuing at least through the Kinkaid Limestone (Upper Chesterian). Almost every specimen of Prerotocrinus in this study was found with a coprophagous platycerid gastropod attached to the upper tegminal surface over the anal cone (РІ. 6, fig. 12; PI. 7, fig. 8). Wachsmuth and Spring- er (1897) stated that in their specimens the anterior margin of the gastropod shell is oriented to the pos- terior side of the tegmen. 54 BULLETIN 330 Pterotocrinus acutus Wetherby, 1879 Plate 6, figures 9—14; Plate 7, figures 1—24; Text-figure 16A 1879a. Pterotocrinus acutus Wetherby, p. 134, pl. 2, figs. 2a—c. 1879a. Pterotocrinus bifurcatus Wetherby, p. 136, pl. 2, figs. 1а—с. 1879b. Pterotocrinus spatulatus Wetherby, p. 137, pl. 2, figs. 3a—c. 1897. Pterotocrinus acutus Wetherby. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 799, pl. 79, figs. 3a-g. 1897. Pterotocrinus bifurcatus Wetherby. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 801, pl. 79, figs. 9a, b. 1926. Pterotocrinus acutus Wetherby. Springer, p. 50, pl. 13, fig. 16. 1926. Pterotocrinus bifurcatus Wetherby. Springer, p. 50, pl. 14, 1934. кн я! acutus Wetherby. Sutton, p. 411, pl. 50, figs. 1934. Maa bifurcatus Wetherby. Sutton, p. 412, pl. 50., figs. 1934. voici: ан spatulatus Wetherby. Sutton, p. 410, pl. 50, figs. 1965. rois acutus Wetherby. Horowitz, p. 42, pl. 5, figs. 1965. Кынай bifurcatus Wetherby. Horowitz, р. 41, pl. 4, figs. 1965. vine it spatulatus Wetherby. Horowitz, p. 44, pl. 5, figs. 14, 15. 1965. Pterotocrinus sp. B. Horowitz, p. 48, pl. 5, figs. 4, 6. 1965. Pterotocrinus sp. C. Horowitz, p. 49, pl. 5, fig. 20. Diagnosis.— Pterotocrinus with lobate dorsal cup outline at level of IIIBrr in plane view from base (PI. 7, figs. 1, 5, 6), dorsal cup somewhat conical (Pl. 7, figs. 2, 4, 7); tegminal wing plates elongate and gen- erally acutely pointed (PI. 6, figs. 9-14); however, many variations in shape may occur: some are flat in different planes, some are pointed, some bifurcate in different planes, and some are spoon-shaped (Pl. 7, figs. 9-24); most wing plates undergo marked thickening proxi- mally (Pl. 7, figs. 3, 8, 9-24); wing plate attachment base generally triangular, as is wing plate scar on teg- men; larger specimens may exhibit small spines on lower Шат and again higher up on the arms at about four-fifths of their length (Pl. 7, fig. 2); 19 to 20 arms (Рр) Remarks.— Most species of Pterotocrinus are based on the shape of isolated wing plates, a character that we and others (e.g., Broadhead, 1981, 1985) believe 15 unrealistic and subject to much intraspecific variation. As a result, many species of Pterotocrinus have little or no biologic integrity (Broadhead, 1981). The con- ditions that have led to this situation, however, are understandable. Until recently, few calyxes and crowns were known; for the most part, only isolated wing plates were found. During the course of our study, nearly a dozen complete or nearly complete crowns, a number of calyxes, and many wing plates were found. Our ex- amination of the crowns and calyxes indicates that P. acutus Wetherby, 1879a, P. bifurcatus Wetherby, 1879a, and P. spatulatus Wetherby, 1879b, should be placed in synonymy. The calyxes and crowns are identical in every way except for the shape of the wing plates. АІ- though some differences in the height and shape of the cups and plates have been reported in the literature, we believe that they are largely the product of different ontogenetic stages, preservation, or intraspecific vari- ation. Sutton (1934) also recognized the close rela- tionship between these three species, and grouped them together in the same “gens” or evolutionary line. We also have noted many variations and intergra- dations between the three basic shapes of wing plates that characterize the three previously-described species. Many different intergradations occur between the acutely-elongate **acutus" (Pl. 6, figs. 9—14) and lat- erally-compressed “spatulatus” forms (РІ. 7, fig. 14). Some of the acutely-elongate forms become laterally compressed, like “spatulatus” (Pl. 7, fig. 9); others ex- hibit two to four processes compressed in the vertical plane (РІ. 7, figs. 11, 13). Some “acutus” forms bifur- cate in the vertical plane (PI. 7, fig. 20), thus approach- ing the “spatulatus” form, whereas others exhibit one or more bifurcations in a horizontal plane (Pl. 7, figs. 17, 18, 22, 23), approaching the “bifurcatus” form. Yet others are flattened in the horizontal plane (Pl. 7, figs. 10, 24), and a few bifurcate in both horizontal and vertical planes (Pl. 7, figs. 15, 19, 22). The only two species that occur in the Sloans Valley member, P. acutus and P. depressus Lyon and Casse- day, 1860, are easily distinguished from each other. The wing plates of P. acutus generally exhibit a thick- ened proximal portion with a triangular attachment scar (Pl. 7, figs. 12, 13), and have a narrow blade that expands outward, perpendicular to the calyx. More- over, the cup of P. acutus is somewhat conical and generally lobate at the level of the tertibrachials so that the arms of each ray are separated from the arms of other rays by an invagination in the cup (Pl. 7, fig. 1). Also, the arms are generally reflexed outward at the level of the wing plates (Pl. 7, figs. 2, 4, 6, 7). Nearly every specimen of P. acutus has a platycerid gastropod on the tegmen (РІ. 6, fig. 12; Pl. 7, fig. 8). In contrast to P. acutus, the wing plates of P. de- pressus exhibit a thin proximal portion with a lanceo- late attachment scar (Pl. 8, figs. 5, 6). The wing plates have greatly-expanded blades that do not expand as far outward from the calyx as the blades of P. acutus do. The cup has a broad, dish-like shape (Pl. 8, figs. 2, 4, 6) and is completely circular at the level of the ter- tibrachials (Pl. 8, fig. 3). The arms generally flex com- pletely over the tegmen with no outward reflex (РІ. 8, fig. 2). Platycerid gastropods are rare on the tegmina of P. depressus. One specimen of P. acutus with spoon-shaped wing plates (UK 115907) was found with the upper surfaces of the wing plates preserved and a centered platycerid gastropod exposed (Text-fig. 16A); the specimen was са ыа MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 55 located on the upper bedding surface of a thin grain- stone bed. Upon removal of the crown, a small, round stem, 2 mm in diameter, was found in the matrix at the position of the basals. The matrix was broken away to follow the stem, which disappeared laterally into the matrix. The stem was found to be at least 6.3 cm long and was 1.5 cm below and parallel to the bedding surface (Text-fig. 16A). The arms ofthe specimen flexed outward at the level of the wing plates for half the length of the free arms, which suggests that the arms were bounded by sediment up to this level in Ше. Ettensohn (1975b) showed that Agassizocrinus lobatus Springer, 1926, with a similar outward flexure of the arms, lived partially buried in the sediment. The small size of the stem compared to the calyx, the buried stem and orientation of the calyx, and the flexure of the arms suggest that the crinoid may have lived in the substrata up to the level of the wing plates (Chesnut and Etten- sohn, 1984). If this were the case, the role of the wing plates in P. acutus could have been to protect the out- stretched arms lying on the substrate, to form eddying currents, to keep the crinoid from moving in a high- energy environment (the specimen was found in a grainstone), to support the crinoid on the substrate, and to protect it against shell-crushing and nipping fishes (see Welch, 1978). Baumiller and Plotnick (1985) also suggested that the wing plates may have stabilized and oriented stemmed crowns elevated in rheophilic conditions. P. acutus is most commonly found in calcarenites, suggesting a preference for firm, sandy substrata. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 2 2. 9:9. 7 Material.—UK 115573, 115574, 115889-115902, 115904-115908, 115919, 115921, 115922, 115924, 115928, 115929, 15931; USNM S-1557. ОК 115899— 115892, 115896-115897, 115899-115902, and 115921-115922, and USNM 5-1557 are topotypes, whereas UK 115898, 115904, and 115912, and USNM 5-1557 are hypotypes. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday, 1860 Plate 8, figures 1-12; Text-figure 16B 1860. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday, p. 68. 1873. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday. Meek and Wor- then, p. 599, pl. 21, fig. 13. 1895. Pterotocrinus wetherbyi Miller and Gurley, p. 44, pl. 4, figs. 6—9. 1897. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 796, pl. 79, figs. 2a-e. 1920. Pterotocrinus menardensis Weller, p. 373, pl. 11, fig. 9. 1926. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday. Springer, p. 50, pl. 14, figs. 4, 4a. 1934. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday. Sutton, pp. 403- 405, pl. 49, figs. 7, 8, 40-44. 1934. Pterotocrinus menardensis Weller. Sutton, p. 405, pl. 49, figs. 47-49. 1934. Pterotocrinus clorensis Sutton, pp. 405, 406, pl. 49, figs. 52, 33. 1934. Pterotocrinus vannus Sutton, p. 408, pl. 49, figs. 9, 10. 1934. Pterotocrinus wetherbyi Miller and Gurley. Sutton, p. 416, pl. 50, figs. 1—4. 1965. Pterotocrinus sp. A. Horowitz, pp. 46—48, pl. 5, figs. 1—3. 1965. Pterotocrinus depressus Lyon and Casseday. Horowitz, pp. 45, 46, pl. 5, figs. 16-19. 1965. Pterotocrinus vannus Sutton. Horowitz, pp. 43, 44, pl. 5, figs. 10-13. Diagnosis.— Pterotocrinus with dorsal cup outline circular at level of IIIBrr (Pl. 8, fig. 3), dorsal cup broadly dish-shaped (PI. 8, figs. 2, 4, 6); tegminal wing plates generally oval to elongate oval, thin, and be- coming knife-like distally (Pl. 8, figs. 1, 2, 4), highly variable in shape; wing plate attachment base and cor- responding wing plate scar on tegmen is lanceolate (PI. 8, figs. 5, 6); 20 arms, generally flexing over and resting against the tegmen (PI. 8, figs. 1, 2). Remarks.— Pterotocrinus menardensis Weller, 1920, P. wetherbyi Miller and Gurley, 1895, and P. clorensis Sutton, 1934, are almost certainly synonymous with P. depressus. P. vannus Sutton, 1934, and P. vannus of Horowitz (1965) also are synonymous with P. теп- ardensis. Sutton (1934) placed all three of the above species in the “depressus” evolutionary line or “gens”, and in our assemblage we have noted considerable variation in wing plate shape, ranging from vannus-like (Horo- witz, 1965) to clorensis- and menardensis-like forms, as well as the more typical depressus forms. P. weth- erbyi represents another variation of the “depressus” type, based on the thickness ofthe wing plates; the type specimen is from the Sloans Valley locality. The above considerations lead us to conclude that these wing plate forms are merely intraspecific variations. A comparison with P. acutus is given in the Remarks section for P. acutus. P. depressus was found most commonly in shales and muddy carbonates, suggesting a preference for muddy substrates. The isolated wing plates commonly served as stable substrates for small epifaunal benthos on the muddy substrates. Occurrence. — Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 5792077 Малета!. — ОК 5753, 115909-115915, 115918, 115922, 115923, 115925-115927, 115929-115930. UK 1159@9 БОЛЕ БОВ 115915, and 115925 are hypotypes. Genus TALAROCRINUS Wachsmuth and Springer, 1881 Type species.— Dichocrinus cornigerus Shumard, 1857. Diagnosis. — Like Dichocrinus Münster, 1839, except 56 BULLETIN 330 plates more massive; tegmen generally as high as cup; large central oral; arms branch on first IBr, biserial, four in each ray. Talarocrinus decornis Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 (not figured) 1897. Talarocrinus decornis Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 788, pl. 3, fig. 19; pl. 78, figs. За-с. Diagnosis.— Calyx elliptical in outline; dorsal cup higher than tegmen, plates in dorsal cup compact; su- tures slightly impressed; tegmen has a single large no- dose oral at the summit, other orals apparently miss- ing; no tegminal spines. Remarks.— Мо specimens of Talarocrinus were found during the course of our study, but two specimens were noted and described by Wachsmuth and Springer (1897). Their locality and stratigraphic data are im- precise, but the locality was probably close to our lo- cality 3 (Text-fig. 1), and the stratigraphic horizon (up- per St. Louis Group) probably is lithostratigraphically equivalent to the Glen Dean Member or lower Pen- nington Formation. T. decornis differs from other dichocrinids found during our study in the number of primibrachials (one) and in the nature of the tegmen. The presence of only one oral and the absence of tegminal spines differen- пате this from other species of Talarocrinus. Not all workers are convinced that Talarocrinus is present as high as the Glen Dean Limestone (Horowitz and Strimple, 1974; Horowitz, written commun., 1985), and it is possible, because of the imprecise stratigraphic and locality data, that 7. decornis may come from lower in the section. Talarocrinus is generally consid- ered to be an Early Chesterian genus, but in addition to T. decornis, we are aware of an undescribed species of Golconda age from eastern Kentucky. Nonetheless, Middle Chesterian species of Talarocrinus probably are rare. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Material.— USNM S-1528A (holotype), and USNM S-1528B (paratype). Subfamily DICHOCRININAE Miller, 1889 Genus HYRTANECRINUS Broadhead and Strimple, 1980 Type species.—Hyrtanecrinus diabolus Broadhead and Strimple, 1980. Diagnosis.— Dichocrinid with 20 pendant arms; IBrr and IIBrr uniserial; proximal Brr incorporated with tegmen; IIIBrr biserial; BB with thickened proximal rim or platform only partly occupied by small column. Hyrtanecrinus pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon, 1862) Plate 8, figures 13, 14 1862.. Cotyledonocrinus pentalobus Casseday and Lyon, p. 26. 1897. Dichocrinus pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon). Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 775, pl. 78, figs. Іа-с. 1981. Hyrtanecrinus pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon). Broadhead, (jor SPA 135 pid ne рО 0559 IO 517. Diagnosis.— Calyx elongate; dorsal cup with thin, unornamented plates (Pl. 8, figs. 13, 14); large BB broadly conical (Pl. 8, fig. 14); RR twice as high as wide, almost vertical, and slightly convex outer surface with a small angularity along median line (PI. 8, fig. 14); R facets deeply excavated and occupying full width of R; second IBrr and IIBrr divided by medial process. Remarks.—' The most outstanding characteristic of H. pentalobus is its recumbent arms (Pl. 8, fig. 13). The only other dichocrinid genus with recumbent arms is Strimplecrinus Broadhead, 1981, and only one species, 5. pendens (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897), exhibits the character (Broadhead, 1981). 5. pendens, however, has a lower ovoid cup and is ornamented with delicate striae; it is an older species occurring in the Burlington Limestone (Middle Mississippian). ,5. pendens also lacks the columnar platform formed from the proximal basals. Two other dichocrinid species also occur in the stud- ied interval; they are 5. superstes (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) and Camptocrinus cirrifer (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897). S. superstes differs from H. pen- talobus by having an obconical dorsal cup, thick plates, no columnar platform, and irregular radials. 5. su- perstes also has only slight excavations on the upper surfaces of the radials, and has only ten heavy arms, all of which are erect. C. cirrifer differs by having a coiled stem, 10 uniserial arms, and very low, irregular basals. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Роса тен ЕЕ, Material.— USNM 5-1509 (lectotype), UK 115567, UK 115575 (hypotype), and UK 115963 (topotype). Genus STRIMPLECRINUS Broadhead, 1981 Type species.— Dichocrinus plicatus Hall, 1861a. Diagnosis. — Dichocrininae with subcylindrical, low hemispherical, or conical dorsal cups; 10 stout arms; IIBrr biserial. Strimplecrinus superstes (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) Plate 8, figure 15 1897. Dichocrinus superstes Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 766, pl. 76, fig. 12. 1981. Strimplecrinus superstes (Wachsmuth and Springer). Broad- head, pp. 142, 143, pl. 13, fig. 8. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 57 Diagnosis. —Subconical cup, higher than wide, unor- namented (Pl. 8, fig. 15). Remarks.—No specimens of Strimplecrinus were found during the course of our study, but the only known specimen, the holotype (USNM S-4159) found earlier at the Sloans Valley locality, was examined at the U. S. National Museum [see Remarks for Hyrta- necrinus pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon, 1862)]. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Material. — USNM S-4159 (holotype). Subfamily CAMPTOCRININAE Broadhead, 1981 Genus CAMPTOCRINUS Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 Type species. — Camptocrinus myelodactylus Wachs- muth and Springer, 1897. Diagnosis. — Crown like Dichocrinus Münster, 1839; bilaterally symmetrical stem is coiled and bears cirri generally along the margins of the flattened columnal sides; 10 arms. Camptocrinus cirrifer (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) Plate 8, figures 16-19 1897. Dichocrinus (Camptocrinus) cirrifer Wachsmuth and Spring- er, р. 780, pl. 76, figs. 13 a-c. 1926. Camptocrinus cirrifer (Wachsmuth and Springer). Springer, p. 32, pl. 8, figs. 10, 10a. 1926. Camptocrinus multicirrus Springer, p. 31, pl. 8, figs. 4—9. 1968. Camptocrinus beaveri Moore and Jeffords, p. 48, pl. 5, figs. 10a-d, pl. 6, figs. 4a-d. 1981. ?Camptocrinus alabamensis Strimple and Moore. Broadhead, p. 145. 1981. Camptocrinus multicirrus Springer. Broadhead, p. 145. 1985. Camptocrinus multicirrus Springer. Broadhead, p. 214. 1985. Camptocrinus beaveri Moore and Jeffords. Broadhead, p. 214. 1985. Camptocrinus alabamensis Strimple and Moore. Broadhead, p. 214. Diagnosis.—Stem long, tapers distally, becoming round and slender; middle part of stem strongly ellip- tical and maintains uniform width (PI. 8, fig. 17); cirri doubled or in clusters of three, and extend from each end of pairs of short nodals (Pl. 8, figs. 16, 18); cirri- bearing nodals commonly coalesce to appear as one ossicle, and alternate with a long internodal; rudimen- tary cirri also form on the convex side of stem; in more distal portion of stem, rudimentary cirri form well- defined whorls; calyx small (Pl. 8, figs. 16, 18, 19); short B circlet, not over one-fourth the height of cup; IBrr broad, short. Remarks.— Camptocrinus cirrifer (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) was divided by Springer (1926) into C. cirrifer, from the “Glen Dean" of Pulaski County, Kentucky, and Bland County, Virginia, and into C. multicirrus Springer, 1926, from the lower part of the Chesterian (O’Hara and Renault formations) in Ala- bama and Illinois.^ The only differences between these two species, according to Springer (1926), are that in C. cirrifer the cirri are more attenuate, the cirri-bearing nodals tend to coalesce, and the rudimentary cirri near the distal end form well-defined whorls. C. cirrifer also occurs in younger strata. The calyxes of these forms are identical insofar as they are known. The slight differences in the stem do not seem to us sufficient to erect a separate species, as even Springer (1926, pp. 32, 33) recognized. C. alabamensis Strimple and Moore, 1973a, is placed in synonymy, based on the work of Broadhead (1981, p. 145). Broadhead suggested that the cup of C. ala- bamensis is essentially the same as that of С. cirrifer. C. alabamensis was distinguished based on its tegminal structures, and the tegminal structure of C. cirrifer is not known with certainty. It is possible that the teg- mina could be different, even with similar dorsal cups. Because of this, we tentatively place C. alabamensis in synonymy with C. cirrifer. C. beaveri Moore and Jeffords, 1968, appears to represent the isolated co- lumnals or columnal pairs of C. cirrifer. Occurrence.—Upper Mississippian (Meramecian— Chesterian). Locality 5. Material.—UK 115570, USNM S-1516A (holo- type), USNM S-1516B (paratype), USNM S-1516 (to- potype), and USNM S-1519, USNM S-1520 (syntypes of C. multicirrus). Family ACROCRINIDAE Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885 Subfamily ACROCRININAE Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885 Genus ACROCRINUS Yandell, 1855 Type species.—Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell, 1855. Diagnosis.—Stem homeomorphic, composed of very thin columnals; calyx urn-shaped (Pl. 9, figs. 1, 2, 4); two large BB; circlets of intercalaries between B and R circlets; very low, wide RR and primanal; upper surface of R supports a tiny axillary IBr and two IIBrr on either side, each followed by an axillary IIBrr; up- permost circlet of intercalaries contains 10 small sub- radials in groups of two; eight interradial intercalaries; two intercalaries under each side of the primanal; two small subanal intercalaries; arms erect. Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell, 1855 Plate 9, figures 1-7 1855. Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell, in Yandell and Shumard. p. 135: 1897. Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell. Wachsmuth and Springer, p. 806, pl. 80, figs. 1-3. + Strimple and Moore's (19732) article on Camptocrinus gave re- versed localities and formations for C. cirrifer and C. multicirrus. 58 BULLETIN 330 1926. Acrocrinus shumardi Y andell. Springer, р. 45, pl. 12, figs. 6, 7. 1943. Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell. Bassler and Moodey, p. 266. 1943. Acrocrinus urnaeformis Hall, 1858. Bassler and Moodey, p. 266. 1969. Acrocrinus shumardi Yandell. Moore and Strimple, pp. 7, 8, text-fig. 2, figs. 1—3. Diagnosis. — Most distal circlet of intercalaries in- cludes eight plates in interradial positions and 10 in subradial position; radials wide; arms erect. Description. —Stem round, proximal portion con- sists of very thin columnals; secondary nodals very thin and sharp-edged; primary nodals are wedge-shaped with thick side producing a cirrus (Pl. 9, fig. 3); wedge forms at expense of lesser columnals; characteristics of dorsal cup as in genus; height of calyx about twice as great as width (РІ. 9, figs. 1, 4); intercalaries subequal, small, smooth-surfaced; tegmen flat on upper surface at level of upper surface of arms near attachment, ridged near arms (РІ. 9, figs. 5-7); tegmen composed of many small plates, those on ridges near arms are knobby or almost spherical (РІ. 9, figs. 6, 7), other tegminal plates smooth to slightly tumid; anal area of tegmen is off-center to- ward posterior edge of upper surface of tegmen (PI. 9, fig. 6); small, very low cone (or mound) of very small plates with a central anal opening makes up the anal structure; arms radiate outward and quickly flex up- ward to a height almost equal to height of dorsal sac (РІ. 9, figs. 1, 2, 4), then may flex inward (Pl. 9, figs. 1, 2); pinnules are moderately long and closely adjoin each other (Pl. 9, fig. 2); ossicles in pinnules are all the same length with sutures at the same distances from the arm, giving the appearance that they are all oriented in rows down the arm (Pl. 9, fig. 2). Remarks.—This is a well-defined and easily distin- guished species. It is most similar to Amphoracrocrinus amphora (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897), but A. ат- phora is taller and has narrower radials, a single distal intercalary below each radial, and pendant arms. Three of our specimens (UK 115940, 115951, and 115953) included specimens of Platyceras Conrad, 1840, on the tegmina. The gastropods are larger than those found on Prerotocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1859. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 1, 3, 5, 6. Material.— UK. 115569, 115937-115960, 115962. UK 115569, 115939, 115941, and 115943 are hypo- types. Class BLASTOIDEA Say, 1825 Order SPIRACULATA Jaeckel, 1918 Family PENTREMITIDAE d'Orbigny, 1851 Genus PENTREMITES Say, 1820 Type species.— Encrina godonii Defrance, 1819. Diagnosis. — Club-shaped to subpyriform theca; ra- dials overlap deltoids; lancet plate widely exposed, forms petaloid ambulacrum; one pore between side plates along the deltoid and radial margins; four spi- racles and an anispiracle around mouth; anispiracle excavated іп divided or undivided anal deltoid plate; three to seven or more hydrospire folds on both sides of ambulacrum; mouth, spiracles, anus covered by many imbricate plates. Remarks.— Four species of Pentremites, P. tulipae- formis Hambach, 1903, P. elegans Lyon, 1860, P. ro- bustus Lyon, 1860, and P. pyriformis Say, 1825, are recognized from the Sloans Valley member in this study. Although Bassler and Moodey (1943) recognized 10 species or subspecies from the same interval in the same area, most have since been placed in synonymy with the above four species. Our synonymies not only reflect all of the above species, but also certain species not reported from the Sloans Valley but included in the undocumented synonymy of Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters (1981). For two of the species cited by Bassler and Moodey (1943) we can find no other reported occurrence from the Sloans Valley member, and wg believe that the reports are in error. The report of P. spicatus Ulrich, 1918,1s based on the incorrect interpretation ofa state- ment by Ulrich (in Butts, 1918) on correlation in the Glen Dean Limestone. With the other species, P. an- gularis Lyon, 1860, we can find no substantiating re- port whatsoever for its occurrence in the Glen Dean Limestone or Pennington Formation ofthe Sloans Val- ley area. Pentremites tulipaeformis Hambach, 1903 Plate 9, figures 8, 9 1903. Pentremites tulipaeformis Hambach, pl. 4, figs. 10, 11. 1918. Pentremites tulipaeformis Hambach. Ulrich in Butts, p. 100, pl. 24, fig. 5. 1918. Pentremites brevis Ulrich in Butts, pl. 100, pl. 24, fig. 6. 1957. Pentremites tulipaformis Hambach [sic]. Galloway and Kas- Ка, p. 67, pl. 6, figs. 16, 17. 1957. Pentremites godonii abbreviatus (Hambach). Galloway and Kaska, (partim), p. 49, pl. 3, figs. 16, 17. 1981. Pentremites platybasis Weller. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, ров 1981. Pentremites brevis Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites tulipaformis Hambach [sic]. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. ў Diagnosis. — Calyx ovoid to globular, small- to me- dium-size, greatest width suprabasal (Pl. 9, figs. 8, 9); length-to-width ratio is 1:1.1; vault nearly straight- sided to paraboloid, truncate to slightly concave sum- mit; pelvis short, vault-to-pelvis ratio 1s 2.1:5; basal plates may be nodose; stem facet may lie in depression; MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 59 pelvic angle 100 to 150 degrees, averaging 120 degrees; ambulacra deeply concave, rims low and narrow, in- terambulacra slightly concave; deltoids 5 to 10 mm long, extend 0.5 mm above mouth, do not flare out- ward. Remarks.— By far the most common species of Pen- tremites found in the Sloans Valley member is this small, globular, low-based, sulcate form. Approxi- mately 160 specimens were found as compared to 68 of the next most common species, P. elegans Lyon, 1860. Many specimens exhibited brachioles (РІ. 9, figs. 8, 9), and a few specimens exhibited oral cover plates. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 152995556; Material.—UK 115566, 116017-116025, 116051- 116057, 116057, 116060. ОК 115566 апа 116022 аге hypotypes in this paper. Pentremites elegans Lyon, 1860 Plate 9, figures 10-13 1860. Pentremites elegans Lyon, р. 632, pl. 20, figs. 4a-c. 1918. Pentremites canalis Ulrich, p. 262, pl. 7, figs. 23, 26. 1957. Pentremites elegans Lyon. Galloway and Kaska, p. 64, pl. 5, figs. 28-30; pl. 6, figs. 1-4. 1981. Pentremites calycinus Lyon, 1860. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites elegans Lyon. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, р. 26% 1981. Pentremites springeri Ulrich, 1918. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites canalis Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, Јоу а Diagnosis. — Calyx pyriform to ovoid, short to me- dium-size in height, greatest width is sub-median (PI. 9, fig. 10); length-to-width ratio is 1.2:1.5; vault is broad, paraboloid to nearly hemispherical in larger forms; pelvis nearly straight-sided to very slightly con- cave; vault-to-pelvis ratio is 0.5:1.3; pelvic angle ranges from 66 to 90 degrees; ambulacra moderately concave, with narrow, low rims; interambulacra nearly flat to slightly concave; short deltoids almost extend to sum- mit, do not flare. Remarks.—Several specimens exhibit brachioles (PI. 9, figs. 10, 11), and one specimen had oral cover plates (Pl. 9, fig. 13). Another specimen from the U. S. Na- tional Museum (USNM 5-5307; Pl. 9, fig. 12), desig- nated P. canalis by Ulrich (1918), is one of the few examples of a complete theca with attached stem and holdfast. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 2: 99990078 Material.—UK. 116026-116031, 116033-116035, 116046-116049, USNM S-5307 (topotype of P. can- alis). UK 116026 and 116032, and USNM 5-5307 аге hypotypes in this study. Pentremites robustus Lyon, 1860 Plate 9, figures 14, 15 1860. Pentremites robustus Lyon, р. 629, pl. 20, figs. 2a—c. 1905. Pentremites fohsi Ulrich, p. 64, pl. 7, figs. 5—9. 1918. Pentremites fohsi Ulrich. Butts, p. 101, pl. 24, fig. 21. 1920. Pentremites fohsi Ulrich. Weller, pp. 370, 371, pl. 10, fig. 4. 1957. Pentremites robustus Lyon. Galloway and Kaska, p. 66, pl. 6, figs. 14, 15. 1957. Pentremites fohsi Ulrich. Galloway and Kaska, p. 66, pl. 6, figs. 11-13; pl. 13, fig. 16. 1981. Pentremites chesterensis Hambach. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites fohsi Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites fohsi marionensis Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites hambachi Butts. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 284. 1981. Pentremites hemisphericus Hambach. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. Diagnosis. — Calyx large, globular or ovoid (Pl. 9, figs. 14, 15); greatest width submedial; length-to-width ratio from 1:1 to 1.3:1; vault subspheroidal to para- bolic, strongly-curved sides; pelvis, short with con- cave, sigmoidal, or straight sides; vault-to-pelvis ratio from 1.7:1 to 4:1; pelvic angle is 90 to 126 degrees; ambulacra concave, rims low, without prominent flanges; interambulacra moderately concave to flat (РІ. 9, fig. 15); deltoids long. Remarks.—' The pelvic angles of examined speci- mens range from 90 to 126 degrees. The specimens ranged in height from 29.5 mm to 55 mm and are fairly large for Pentremites. Using Galloway and Kas- ka's (1957) classification, 12 specimens (UK 116042- UK 116045) would be assigned to P. fohsi because of their small pelvic angles (90 to 98 degrees). In this study, however, these specimens are assigned to P. robustus. Some juvenile forms (РІ. 9, fig. 14) from our assem- blage of P. robustus approach the pyriform shape of P. elegans Lyon, 1860. However, a broader pelvic angle can be used to differentiate them. Although Waters, Horowitz, and Macurda (1985) inferred that P. robus- tus was probably derived from P. tulipaeformis Ham- bach, 1903, Horowitz (written commun., 1985) indi- cated that it may have been derived from P. elegans, suggesting that P. robustus may be polyphyletic. De- spite recent advances іп understanding the evolution and taxonomy of Pentremites, many problems still re- quire resolution. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). IEocalities:2..5. 5 00/74 Material. —UK 116036-116049. UK 116049 and 116038 are hypotypes in this study. 60 BULLETIN 330 Pentremites pyriformis Say, 1825 Plate 9, figures 16, 17 1825. Pentremites pyriformis Say, p. 294. 1835. Pentremites pyriformis Say. Troost, p. 228, pl. 10, fig. 8. 1905. Pentremites pyriformis Say. Ulrich, р. 57, pl. 6, figs.9-12. 1905. Pentremites pyramidatus Ulrich, p. 64, pl. 7, figs. 12-14. 1918. Pentremites pyriformis Say. Ulrich, p. 257, pl. 6, figs. 3-6, 8, 9. 1918. Pentremites patei Ulrich, p. 261, pl. 7, figs. 17-22. 1920. Pentremites okawensis Weller, p. 357, pl. 10, figs. 5—7. 1920. Pentremites pyramidatus Ulrich. Weller, p. 325, pl. 4, figs. 21-24. 1957. Pentremites pyriformis Say. Galloway and Казка, p. 56, pl. 4, figs. 32—37; pl. 13, figs. 2, 3. 1957. Pentremites patei Ulrich. Galloway and Kaska, p. 57, pl. 5, figs: T, 2. 1957. Pentremites pyramidatus Ulrich. Galloway and Kaska, p. 57, pl- 5, igs 574; pl 157 Tig 7. 1981. Pentremites arctibrachiata huntsvillensis Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites girtyi Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites lyoni Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 291. 1981. Pentremites lyoni gracilens Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites patei Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. 1981. Pentremites pyramidatus Ulrich. Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters, p. 281. Diagnosis. — Medium-size to large, pyriform calyx (Pl. 9, figs. 16, 17); greatest width medial; length-to- width ratio from 1.1:1 to 2:1; parabolic to pyramidal vault; pelvis pyramidal, generally with straight sides; vault-to-pelvis ratio from 0.8:1 to 1.8:1; pelvic angle is 50 to 110 degrees; ambulacra flat to slightly convex with either low, narrow rims or no rims; interambu- lacra flat to slightly concave; deltoids generally do not reach summit. Remarks.— Using Galloway and Kaska’s (1957) classification, a specimen with a pelvic angle of 72 degrees (UK 116059) would have been assigned to P. pyramidatus Ulrich, 1905. Similarly, two specimens with pelvic angles of 68 degrees and 69 degrees (UK 116060) would have been assigned to P. patei Ulrich, 1918, and two other specimens (UK 116061, UK 116062) would have been assigned to P. okawensis Weller, 1920. In this study, differences between these Text-figure 25.— Cover-plate arrangement in Lepidodiscus lau- doni. Six plates are included in each cycle. species are considered to reflect intraspecific variations of P. pyriformis Say, 1825. One specimen exhibits bra- chioles (UK 116064). Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Localities 1, 3, 6, 7. Material. —UK 116059-116066. UK 116061 and 116065 are hypotypes in this paper. Class EDRIOASTEROIDEA Billings, 1858 Order ISOROPHIDA Bell, 1976 Suborder ISOROPHINA Bell, 1976 Family AGELACRINITIDAE Clarke, 1901 Genus LEPIDODISCUS Meek and Worthen, 1868 Type species. — Agelacrinites squamosus Meek and Worthen, 1868. Diagnosis.—Theca may be highly convex, domal, or clavate in form; numerous small orals, with primary orals undifferentiated; hydropore structure large, elon- gate, and separate from central oral rise; posterior side of hydropore formed by many plates; ambulacra long, curved; ambulacra I through IV curve counterclock- wise, V (right posterior) curves clockwise (P1. 10, fig. 7); ambulacral coverplates composed of six-plate cycles; interambulacrals may be squamose and imbricate, or polygonal and tessellate; anal structure valvular, formed by two anal-plate circlets (Pl. 10, fig. 8; Text-fig. 26). Remarks.— Three closely-related clavate genera ex- hibit retractable, pedunculate aboral zones: Discocystis Gregory, 1897, Ulrichidiscus Bassler, 1935, and Lep- idodiscus. Discocystis has ambulacral coverplates com- posed of three- or four-plate cycles, and has a hydro- pore structure formed by at least three large plates on the posterior side. The ambulacra curve as in Lepi- dodiscus. Lepidodiscus has coverplates with six-plate cycles (Pl. 10, figs. 4, 5, 7; Text-fig. 25). Ulrichidiscus has ambulacra that curve in a contrasolar direction, and has coverplates arranged in a seven-plate cycle. The anterior plates of the hydropore do not reach the perradial oral midline. The plates of the pedunculate zone in Ulrichidiscus are irregular in size and shape and do not form regular vertical columns, whereas the same plates in Discocystis are regular in size and shape, and form regular vertical columns (Pl. 10, fig. 6), as in Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler, 1936). Both Lepidod- iscus and Ulrichidiscus occur in the Sloans Valley mem- ber. Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler, 1936) Plate 10, figures 1—9; Text-figures 25, 26 1936. Discocystis laudoni Bassler, p. 21, pl. 3, figs. 7, 8. 1943. Discocystis laudoni Bassler. Bassler and Moodey, p. 201. 1958. Discocystis laudoni Bassler. Ehlers and Kesling, pp. 265-272, pls. 1-3. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 61 1976. Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler). Bell, pp. 257, 267, text-figs. 52-54; pls. 49, 50, pl. 51, figs. 1-10. 1977. Lepidodiscus laudoni (Bassler). Bell, text-fig. 9. Diagnosis. — Theca large, clavate (Pl. 10, figs. 1, 2, 7), pedunculate zone composed of numerous very thin imbricate, subrectangular plates arranged in vertical columns (Pl. 10, fig. 6); ambulacral coverplates rise perradially, forming small perradial ridges (РІ. 10, figs. 4, 5); ambulacral floorplates abut equally against ad- jacent floorplates (Pl. 10, fig. 8); two lateral protuber- ances occur on lower surface of each floorplate (Pl. 10, fig. 8); central interambulacrals polygonal, tessellate (РЇЇ ОЛОБО Вэ І Remarks.—' Two other species of Lepidodiscus аге L. squamosus Meek and Worthen, 1868, which is non- clavate, and L. sampsoni (Miller, 1891), which 15 cla- vate and exhibits irregularly-arranged pedunculate plates. Discocystis kaskaskiensis (Hall, 1858) appears to be closely related to L. /audoni (Bassler, 1936) on the basis of pedunculate zones, which are regular in size and shape, and form regular vertical columns, as in L. laudoni. In fact, on this basis the variation be- tween D. kaskaskiensis (the only species of Discocystis) and L. laudoni is less than the difference between the three species of Lepidodiscus. The major differences between Discocystis and Lepidodiscus, however, are in the ambulacral coverplate arrangement and in the hy- dropore structure (Bell, 1976). Although D. kaskaskiensis was reported from the Sloans Valley area by Bassler and Moodey (1943), theirs is the only report of the species from this area, and we have not been able to find the specimens or any other citation. We suspect that they were really reporting undescribed specimens of L. laudoni, a species that was relatively new and not well known at the time. АП of our specimens exhibited at least a few pedun- cular plates, but showed various stages of extension Text-figure 26.— Internal plate arrangement in Lepidodiscus lau- doni. of — oral frame; as — anal structure; fp — ambulacral floor plates. and compression of the peduncular zone. Specimen UK 116015 was preserved in the extended state with a total height of 51 mm (PI. 10, fig. 6). Two specimens (UK 116001 and 116005) show the peduncle in a con- tracted state (Pl. 10, figs. 3, 9). Specimen UK 116016 provides an excellent internal view of the oral surface (Pl. 10, fig. 8; Text-fig. 26). It shows abutting floorplates with two lateral protuber- ances, the oral frame with the stone canal, and the anal structure. Various specimens show evidence of attachment to acolumn of Archimedes Owen, 1838, a fenestellid frond, and the brachiopod Cleiothyridina sublamellosa (Hall, 1858). А gregarious nature may be indicated by a slab that exhibited 11 specimens on the same surface (UK 116000). Occurrence. — Mississippian (Kinderhookian-Ches- terian). Localities 3, 5, 6, 7. Material.—UK 115580, 115582, 116000-116016. UK 115580, 115582, 116001, 116005, 116015, and 116016 are hypotypes in this paper. Genus ULRICHIDISCUS Bassler, 1935 Type species.— Agelacrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1894. Diagnosis. —Subclavate or high-domed theca (РІ. 10, figs. 10, 11); many undifferentiated oral plates (Pl. 10, fig. 10); all ambulacra curved contrasolar (Pl. 10, fig. 10); interambulacrals may be tessellate or slightly im- bricate (Pl. 10, fig. 10); large hydropore structure sep- arated from central oral rise (РІ. 10, fig. 10); anal struc- ture valvular with two circlets of plates (Pl. 10, fig. 10). Remarks.—See Remarks under the genus Lepidod- iscus Meek and Worthen, 1868. Ulrichidiscus 18 known only from four specimens, all from the Sloans Valley area. Ulrichidiscus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley, 1894) Plate 10, figures 10, 11 1894. Agelacrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, p. 16, pl. 3, fig. 18. 1935. Ulrichidiscus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley). Bassler, p. 8, plis у, 1943. Ulrichidiscus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley). Bassler and | Моодеу, р. 209. 1976. Ulrichidiscus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley). Bell, pp. 271- 277, text-figs. 56-58; pl. 53, pl. 54, figs. 1-7. Diagnosis. — Coverplates in seven-plate cycles. Remarks.—No specimens were found during our study, but three of the four known specimens were examined at the U. S. National Museum. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Material.-USNM S-3193A, B, C (topotypes). 62 BULLETIN 330 Class ECHINOIDEA Leske, 1778 Subclass PERISCHOECHINOIDEA M'Coy, 1849a Order ECHINOCYSTITOIDA Jackson, 1912 Family LEPIDESTHIDAE Jackson, 1896 Genus LEPIDESTHES Meek and Worthen, 1868 Type species.— Lepidesthes coreyi Meek and Wor- then, 1868. Diagnosis. — Test high, with strongly imbricate plates (РІ. 11, fig. 1); ambulacra do not enlarge adorally, com- posed of plates forming many columns (PI. 11, fig. 1); few columns of interambulacra (Pl. 11, fig. 1); no pri- mary tubercles. Lepidesthes formosa Miller, 1879 Plate 11, figures 1—3 1879. Lepidesthes formosa Miller, pp. 41, 42, pl. 8, fig. 4. 1912. Lepidesthes formosa Miller. Jackson, pp. 418—420, pl. 66, figs. 4—7; pl. 68, figs. 3-14. Diagnosis.— Eight rows of imbricating ambulacral plates at mid-zone; five rows of imbricating interam- bulacral plates at mid-zone. Description. —' Test small, spheroidal to slightly el- lipsoidal; ambulacra twice as wide as interambulacra (Pl. 11, fig. 1); at mid-zone, eight columns of small, rhombic ambulacral plates (Pl. 11, fig. 1); plates bevel under the adambulacrals and imbricate over each other adorally (Pl. 11, fig. 1); pore pairs located along median line of plates or slightly off-center towards nearest in- terambulacral; pores slightly above the middle of each plate (Pl. 11, fig. 1); interambulacra contain five col- umns at the midzone, composed of plates imbricating strongly aborally and over the ambulacrals (Pl. 11, fig. 1); in dorsal region interambulacrals impinge broadly upon oculars on both sides; peristome covered only with ambulacral plates; oculars separate the genitals and are relatively large, with two pores; wide genitals do not form elongate ventral apex; two to four pores per genital plate (Pl. 11, fig. 3), madreporic pores in one plate; wide-angled pyramids with moderately deep foramen magnum, plicate ridges on lateral wings of pyramids; teeth are grooved (Pl. 11, fig. 3). Remarks.— Lepidesthes formosa is the only species with a combination of eight columns of ambulacral plates and five columns of interambulacral plates at the midzone. The holotype is from the “Glen Dean" (most likely the Sloans Valley member) of Sloans Val- ley, Pulaski County, Kentucky. Only two previously- described species are known from the Chester Series: L. formosa Miller, 1879, from the “СІеп Dean" and the Chesterian undifferentiated, and L. spectabilis (Worthen and Miller, 1883), from the Chesterian of Illinois. L. spectabilis has 10 or more rows of ambu- lacral plates and five rows of interambulacral plates at the midzone. Jackson (1912) indicated that the number of pores on the genital plate varies from two to three, but one of our specimens exhibits four pores in the probable genital plate (Pl. 11, fig. 3). Occurrence.—Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Locality 3. Material.—UK 115988, 115996, USNM S- 3858(8020), all topotypes. UK 115988 and USNM S- 3858(8020) are hypotypes. Order PALAECHINOIDA Haeckel, 1866 Family PALAECHINIDAE M'Coy, 1849a Genus PALAECHINUS M'Coy, 1844a Type species.— Palaechinus ellipticus Lambert and Thiery, 1910. Diagnosis. — Two columns of plates in ambulacrum; pore pairs uniserial or slightly biserial. Palaechinus jacksoni, new species Plate 11, figure 4; Text-figure 27 Etymology of Name.—' The species name honors Robert Tracy Jackson, who was a pioneer in the work on Paleozoic echinoids. Inter- Ambulacrals ambulacrals Text-figure 27. — Ambulacrum from Palaechinus jacksoni, n. sp., ambulacrals with uniserial pore pairs. Pitting on interambulacrals is not shown. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 63 Diagnosis.—Four columns of interambulacrals at mid-zone (Pl. 11, fig. 4); interambulacrals bear nu- merous pits formed by circular arrays of apparently coalescing tubercles (Pl. 11, fig. 4); ambulacral plates are primary at mid-zone and appear to be regularly- shaped throughout. Description. — Most of the test is crushed and dis- turbed so that shape of the test and nature of the apical and peristomal systems cannot be discerned. Ambu- lacra are narrow with two columns of primary plates and two to three plates equal to the height of the in- terambulacral plates (Text-fig. 27). Pore pairs are reg- ularly uniserial. Tubercles are present, but plates are too worn to determine patterns. Interambulacra are wide with four columns of plates at mid-zone (Pl. 11, fig. 4). Plates typically are hexagonal and wider than high. Plates bear pits arranged in horizontal rows (РІ. 11, fig. 4) formed by circular arrays of apparently co- alescing tubercles; plates bear eight to 12 pits, but pits decrease in number toward ambulacra. Pits may bear even smaller pits formed by smaller tubercles and may be shared by adjacent plates. Remarks.— P. jacksoni, n. sp., is distinguished from other species through the presence of numerous pits formed by the arrangement of tubercles on the inter- ambulacral plates. P. jacksoni is only the second species of the genus to be found in North America. P.(?) minor Jackson, 1912, may be a species of Maccoya Pomel, 1869. Pa- laechinus canadensis Kier, 1953, and the newly-de- scribed P. jacksoni are the only members of the genus from North America. Both P.(?) minor and P. cana- densis are Lower Mississippian species. The new species is Middle Chesterian in age and is the latest occurrence of the genus in North America and possibly in the world. The holotype is the only known specimen (USNM 372191) and was found in the Springer collection dur- ing our study. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Locality 1. Material. —USNM 372191 (holotype). Order CIDAROIDA Claus, 1880 Family ARCHAEOCIDARIDAE М'Соу, 1844a Genus ARCHAEOCIDARIS M'Coy, 1844a Type species.— Cidaris urii Fleming, 1828. Diagnosis.—Subspherical test, probably flattened adorally and adapically; ambulacrals tend to have triad cycles, each third plate enlarged; four columns of in- terambulacrals at midzone, interradial plates imbricate over adradial plates, which imbricate over the am- bulacral plates; primary spines not clavate terminally, lacking discoid shaft, cortex of spines reduced or ab- sent, medulla hollow. Archaeocidaris hemispinifera, new species Plate 11, figures 5—9; Text-figure 28 Etymology of Name.— The species is so named be- cause the oral hemisphere is the only hemisphere with primary spines. Diagnosis. — Ambulacra straight; primary spines without spinules; apical hemisphere lacking primary spines; apical interambulacra with one or two extra columns of plates beveled laterally and inserted be- neath other interambulacral plates; oral hemisphere typical with four columns of interambulacral plates and primary spines. Description.— The test is probably depressed apically and orally (Pl. 11, fig. 5; Text-fig. 28B). Ambulacra are moderately narrow and straight (Pl. 11, figs. 5—7; Text- fig. 28A). All ambulacral plates reach radial suture. Every third ambulacral plate is enlarged and equals the perradial length of the opposing two smaller ambula- crals to form a three-plate combination that tapers evenly and alternately (Text-fig. 28A). The third am- bulacral gains its size by a perradial enlargement that contains one perforate tubercle. Despite the unequal size of the ambulacral plates, the pores in each column line up perfectly. The spines belonging to these tuber- cles are at least 2 or 3 mm long (broken?), and are small, striate, and straight. Each ambulacral plate is beveled and overlapped by the outer interambulacrals (Pl. 11, fig. 7). The nature of the apical and oral am- bulacrals is not clear in the holotype or in the paratype, because the imbricating plates have been compressed and their positions are unclear. The interambulacral plates of the oral hemisphere are generally typical of other species of Archaeocidaris, they are wider than high. The inner interambulacrals are hexagonal and imbricate over the outer interambulacrals (Pl. 11, fig. 5). The outer interambulacrals of the oral hemisphere are pentagonal. The primary tubercle is perforate (РІ. 11, fig. 5); some are moderately high. The scorbicule is smooth; there are no ridges formed from the sec- ondary tubercles entering the scorbicular region. Sec- ondary tubercles are formed around the surficial mar- gin of the plates (Pl. 11, fig. 5) (the beveled portion overlapped by more oral imbricating plates is smooth, but where the plates meet at the surface, tubercles are formed at the edge of each plate). Many of the sec- ondary tubercles are perforate. The primary spines are broken in all specimens, and the maximum length of any spine is 6 mm (РІ. 11, fig. 8). The spines are finely- striate, possibly hollow, and taper above the milled ring. Spinules are absent. The secondary spines of the interambulacral plates are like those of the ambulacra. The interambulacrals of the apical hemisphere are quite 64 BULLETIN 330 different; these plates are subquadrangular, squamose, elongate adapically, and without primary tubercles (РІ. 11, fig. 7; Text-fig. 28A). They appear to be more strongly imbricate than the plates of the other hemi- sphere (Pl. 11, fig. 7). The central portion of the plates is smooth. Zero to three perforated tubercles are pres- ent along the adapical and adradial margins of the plates. An unusual feature of the apical hemisphere interambulacra is the number of columns. Where a complete interambulacral section is preserved, there appear to be five to six columns of plates (Pl. 11, fig. 7; Text-fig. 28A). The centralmost column or columns do not imbricate over the other interambulacrals but are overlapped by them. Therefore, the centermost col- umn appears to be depressed. In the holotype (UK 115989), several dislocated plates with two pores each appear to be genital plates. The nature of the apical region is relatively uncertain, due to compression of the specimen. The pyramids appear to have moderately deep fo- ramen magnum and deep muscle pits. Cidaroid teeth are strongly grooved toward the top (Pl. 11, fig. 7). The angle between wings 1s approximately 45 degrees. Remarks.—' The ambulacra of A. immanis Kier, 1958, A. worthenia Hall, 1858, and A. rossica (Buch, 1842) are sinuous. A. hemispinifera, n. sp., has straight am- bulacra. The ambulacra of A. lagrandensis Miller and Gurley, 1890b, and A. blairi (Miller, 1891) are not known. Many of the ambulacral plates of А. immanis do not reach the perradial line. All ambulacrals reach the perradial line in other species in which ambulacra are known, including A. hemispinifera. A. agassizi Hall, 1858, A. urii (Fleming, 1828), and A. rossica have pri- mary spines with spinules. А. hemispinifera lacks spi- nules on its spines. The interambulacral plates of A. aliquantula Kier, 1958, contain coarse plications that extend from the basal terrace to the margin of the plates. Extremely fine radial plications are found on the edge of the basal terrace of A. blairi. A. hemispi- nifera is the only species in which nontuberculate (pri- mary) interambulacrals occupy half of the test. 4. im- manis is probably closest to A. hemispinifera in this respect. А. immanis has primary spines on most of the test except the most apical interambulacrals. A. im- manis also has an extra column in the apical inter- ambulacra made up of small plates. Five specimens of A. hemispinifera on two slabs were found with Tholocrinus Kirk, 1939. One specimen oc- curs with Taxocrinus Phillips, in Morris, 1843. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Localities 3, 5. Material. — UK. 115989 (holotype); UK 115990 and 115992 (topotypes; UK 115584, 115987, 115991, 115993-115995. UK 115995 is a hypotype in this study. Subphylum ASTEROZOA Zittel, 1895 Class STELLEROIDEA Lamarck, 1816 Subclass OPHIUROIDEA Gray, 1840 Order PHRYNOPHIURIDA Matsumoto, 1915 Suborder EURYALINA Lamarck, 1816 Family ONYCHASTERIDAE Miller, 1889 Text-figure 28.— Plate arrangement for Archaeocidaris hemispinifera, n. sp. A. Lateral view. B. Dorsal view. ps — primary spines; ss — secondary spines (ambulacral and interambulacral); x — extra row of interambulacrals produced in the aboral hemisphere; ab — aboral pole; 0 — oral pole. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 65 Genus ONYCHASTER Meek and Worthen, 1868 Type species.— Onychaster flexilis Meek and Wor- then, 1868. Diagnosis.— Disc small; disc and arms covered by thick integument with or without granules; five arms; laterals small. Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968 Plate 12, figures 1, 2 1968a. Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, pp. 197— 200, pl. 34, figs. 1—6; text-fig. 1. 1968b. Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling. Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, рр. 50-57, pl. 4, figs. 1-3, text-fig. 4. 1970. Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling. Strimple, p. 42. Diagnosis.— Disc small with five arms, tapering and flexible; arms may curl up under disc; integument on arms consists of small imbedded ossicles generally ar- ranged in hexagonal pattern (Pl. 12, figs. 1, 2); vertebrae formed by weakly-fused pairs of ambulacrals; denticles of mouth frame large and elevated as a dome; torus rounded, short, subrectangular with denticle suture only slightly depressed; mouth angle-plates large, each pair narrowly separated. Remarks.—Onychaster strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a, has marked differences in verte- brae and mouth frame from the other two species of Onychaster. These other species are dealt with by Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling (1968a, 1968b). The integu- ment is different also: O. barrisi (Hall, 1861b) has thin ossicles arranged irregularly; О. flexilis Meek and Wor- then, 1868, has close-set, rounded ossicles 1n a tessel- late pattern; and O. strimplei has small, rounded os- sicles forming a hexagonal tessellate pattern. O. strimplei has been found in the Middle Chesterian Gol- conda Formation, and the Sloans Valley occurrence extends its range higher into the Chesterian. The other two species are found in the Lower Mississippian. The specimens found in this study were found wrapped around the anal sacs of the crinoid Pulaski- crinus campanulus (Pl. 12, figs. 1, 2). We believe that the ophiuroid was probably coprophagous on the cri- noid. However, Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling (1968b) stated: it occurs to us that the vulnerability of the stomach and other internal organs, inadequately armored on the aboral side, may have been a factor inducing Onychaster to seek protection within the arms of crinoids. Later in the same article, they stated: The association of Onychaster flexilis with crinoid calyxes has been widely publicized. We have also seen one specimen of O. barrisi on a crinoid tegmen. Brittle-stars which do not burrow into the bottom sediments and ingest quantities of mud evolved two methods of acquiring sufficient nourishment. In the keen competition with one another and with other animals for the rain of detritus settling in marine waters, one group developed branching of the arms, wher- ewith these “‘basket-stars” proliferated the ambulacral area into а great food-collecting network. The other group, which includes Ол- ychaster and certain of the living Phrynophiurida, solved the prob- lem by climbing upon crinoids and other sessile bottom forms to intercept the food supply before it reached the congested bottom area and to take advantage of any food-collecting currents set up by their hosts. The well-developed masticatory apparatus and the re- stricted oral intake argue strongly against Onychaster being copro- phagous. On the other hand, the feeding of crinoid and brittle-star were different. Lacking any structures for biting, chewing, or grinding, the crinoid sifted and selected particles of the proper minute size for ingestion. The brittle-star, as indicated by its mouth-frame, was equipped to eat large and even hard materials. Onychaster may very well have taken up residence on the crinoid calyx both for protection and for taking advantage of large food particles rejected by the cri- noid. The relationship appears actually commensal. The separate species of Onychaster appear to restrict themselves to only a few species of crinoids. О. flexilis is found on Actinocrinus multiramosus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897, Scytalocrinus robustus (Hall, 18612), and Barycrinus hoveyi (Hall, 18612). Each of these cri- noids is the only host of Onychaster in its respective stratigraphic formation. Onychaster, in fact, is rarely found by itself (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897). On- ychaster barrisi has been found on a crinoid tegmen (genus and species not disclosed) by Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling (1968b). However, Onychaster strimplei has not been found associated with a crinoid tegmen until now. The only observable plates were the integument os- sicles, which cover the arms and the central disc. The ossicles are arranged in a hexagonal pattern. The length of the arms cannot be determined, because they inter- twine around the anal sac ofthe crinoids. The diameter of several arms near the disc is 6 mm. In specimen UK 115998 (РІ. 12, fig. 1), the disc appears to have a diameter of about 14 mm. The typical integument os- sicle has a diameter of about 0.5 mm. Occurrence. — Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Locality 3. Material.— UK 115997 and 115998, the latter a hy- potype in this study. Order OEGOPHIURIDA Matsumoto, 1915 Suborder LYSOPHIURINA Gregory, 1896 ?Family ENCRINASTERIDAE Schuchert, 1914 unidentifiable ophiuroid genus and species Plate 12, figure 3 Description. — Oral disc well developed (РІ. 12, fig. 3), probably with marginal frame; halves of vertebrae appear to be alternating (Pl. 12, fig. 3); laterals sub- ventral with broad oral face, elongate transversely; oth- 66 BULLETIN 330 er features too poorly preserved to describe at generic level. Remarks.— The alternating vertebrae, a well-devel- oped disc with prominent marginal frame, and sub- ventral laterals suggest that this is an encrinasterid ophiuroid. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Locality 3. Material. — UK. 115583 (hypotype). Subclass ASTEROIDEA Blainville, 1830 Order SPINULOSIDA Perrier, 1884 Suborder EUGNATHINA Spencer and Wright, 1966 Family TAENIACTINIDAE Spencer, 1927 Genus CALYPTACTIS Spencer, 1930 Type species. — Calyptactis spinosus Spencer, 1930. Diagnosis.— Five arms, typically enrolled (РІ. 12, figs. 4-7); apically, median row of radial plates on each arm bordered on each side by a row of supramarginals (РІ. 12, figs. 5-7); adambulacrals below and commonly hid- den by supramarginals, are short, broad, forming a very narrow edge and bearing long spines in line at right angles to the arm; spines of adambulacrals flat, not conical; most ossicles fairly stout; no apical plates bear ridges; ambulacrals are an advanced form of the flooring-plate type; mouth-angle plates very promi- nent, with deep grooves for water and nerve rings; high, erect apophysis; proximal ambulacral, open V-type. Remarks.— Onychaster Meek and Worthen, 1868, Calliasterella Schuchert, 1914, and Calyptactis have “bird claw"-type ventral enrollment of the arms. On- ychaster is an ophiuroid. Calliasterella, however, has a similar plate arrangement to Calyptactis. Spencer (1930, p. 395) stated: None of the apical plates (of Calyptactis) bears ridges, and in this character the forms differ unmistakably from Calliasterella, which also has *Onychaster"-like arm foldings .... Considering the manner in which spines are borne, he stated (p. 401): The apical plates of Calliasterella have stout ridges, and the spines are set on the lateral edges of these ridges. He additionally stated (p. 396): This frame [mouth-frame of Calyptactis] contrasts strongly with the frame of Calliasterella, which is of the closed ring type, with very prominent first ambulacralia and mouth-angle plates small in com- parison. Furthermore (p. 398), he wrote: There seems to be an ondontophor [axillary] in the angles between arms IV and V [of Calyptactis spinosus]. The plate is elongated in a horizontal position, not vertically, as in Calliasterella. Calyptactis spenceri, new species Plate 12, figures 4—7; Text-figures 18, 29 Etymology of Name. — The species name honors W. K. Spencer, who has done much work with Paleozoic asterozoans. Diagnosis.— Plates of the disc are stellate (РІ. 12, figs. 5, 6); one very short, stubby, conical spine (Text-fig. 29) centrally located on all radials; each supramarginal (except Sm1) bears one small spine near the distalmost corner of the plate; spines as on radials. Description. — The five arms are fairly long and en- rolled ventrally (Pl. 12, figs. 4—7); diameter of arms (about 5 mm) is approximately one-half the diameter of the disc (about 10 mm). The aboral surface of the disc 15 flat-topped, with a shallow depression in the center formed by the imbrication of somewhat robust outer plates (primary radials and Sm1) upon less robust inner plates (centroradials and the centrale) (Pl. 12, figs. 5, 6; Text-fig. 29). The sides of the disc are decli- vitous from the central disc, the angles of which are formed by the five primary radials. The plates distal of the primary radial and Sm1 descend and form the sides. The arms are almost perpendicular to the flat- topped disc (Text-fig. 29B). The plates of the disc are stellate and imbricate (РІ. 12, fig. 5; Text-fig. 29B). The upper surface of the cen- trale (C) is slightly convex (Text-fig. 29A). It has a stellate, pentagonal form due to the moderate concav- ities on its sides. It appears that the C imbricates over a circlet of five small, surrounding centroradials (cR) (Text-fig. 29B). The form of these 1s unclear because their edges are covered by the overlying plates. Sur- rounding the centroradials is a circlet of five primary radials (R1) alternating with five Sm1 (РІ. 12, figs. 5, 6; Text-fig. 29). Both of these imbricate over the cen- troradials, while the primary radials imbricate over the Sm1. The R1 are slightly more distal than the Sml. The R1 and the Sm1 are somewhat more stellate than the C, but are about the same size. The Sm1 have the same degree of convexity as the C, but the R1 are all much more convex and robust than either of the other two, and have small circular depressions in the center of the plates that supported single spines (none of which are preserved). The Sm do not have these spine scars. The RI are hexagonally stellate, with one of the points directed proximally (Pl. 12, fig. 5; Text-fig. 29). The shapes and sizes of the Sm2 and Ax are unclear. The R2, R3, etc., are elongate hexagonal, but the form becomes progressively exaggerated distally into a rectangular shape, with the short axis parallel to the ray (Pl. 12, fig. 6; Text-fig. 29A). АП of the radials are very convex. It appears that the R1 imbricates over the R2. The R2 is in contact with the R3, but from that point, the RR do not touch, and ride upon the MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 67 contact between the Sm. The R2 still has a somewhat stellar form, but the side concavity diminishes in more distal RR. Both the distal axial point and the proximal axial point of the stellate RR are reduced, but still discernable. The RR bear small, circular spine scars centrally on each plate. The associated spines, when preserved, are very short, stubby, conical forms with a rounded base (Text-fig. 29). Their length is less than the shortest axis on the radial plate. They appear to be more like pointed knobs than spines. The Sm of the arms are shaped like irregular sub- parallelograms with the longest axis directed at an an- gle of 40 to 60 degrees distally from the ray axis (РІ. 12, fig. 6; Text-fig. 29A). There is a matched pair on either side of the radials with their midline occurring between each radial plate. The RR imbricate over the Sm. Distally, the Sm become comparatively larger than the R plate over them. Each Sm bears a small circular spine scar, and, if preserved, a small knob-like spine, near the farthest and most distal edge of the plate (Pl. 12, figs. 4, 7; Text-fig. 29). The convex Sm curve to- ward the ventral side of the ray and form the sides. Each Sm is in contact with one or two ventrally-di- rected adambulacrals. The Sm slightly overhangs the Ad and commonly hides them from dorsal view of the ray (Text-fig. 29). In side view, the adambulacrals are subrectangular, directed at an angle with the longest axis ventral and distal. The adambulacrals support one (or more?) ventrally-directed small spines (Text-fig. 29A), comparatively longer than the knoblike spines of the other plates. No ambulacral or oral structure is observed in the two specimens, due to enrollment of the arms. Remarks.—The species of Calyptactis are differen- tiated by the types and positions of the spines. C. con- fragosus (Miller, 1892) has numerous long spines on both radials and supramarginals (Spencer, 1930, p. 396). According to Miller (1892), all the radial plates are sculptured by spine scars and several spine scars appear on each disc plate, with ridges separating the scars. Spencer stated that C. confragosus is covered with spines (p. 394); however, the only disc plates bearing spines in C. spenceri, n. sp. are the radials, and these have only one spine each. No ridges separate spine scars, and the radial plates are not sculptured by spine scars. C. demissus (Miller, 1892) has angular arms with prominent spines on the primary radials of the disc and on the radials of the arms only. C. spenceri has spines on the radials and on the supramarginals. The spines are not prominent, however. C. spinosus carries isolated long spines on occasional radials and supra- marginals (Spencer, 1930, p. 396). C. perarmatus (Whidborne, 1896) has no spines on the apical arm surface. Calliasterella americana Kesling and Strim- ple, 1966, is actually a species of Calyptactis. The ex- cellent photographs of this species indicate that it 15 closely related to Calyptactis spenceri. However, there are no obvious large spine scars on the plates as in C. Text-figure 29.— Plate arrangement for Calyptactis spenceri, n. sp. A. Lateral view. B. Dorsal view. с = central; cr = centroradials(?); R1 = primary radials; Sm1 = first supramarginals; R2 = secondary radials; R3 = tertiary radials; a = adambulacrals; s = spine; ss = spine scar. 68 BULLETIN 330 spenceri. According to Kesling and Strimple (1966), this species probably had many small spines attached to numerous tubercles on the plates. Kesling and Strimple (1966, p. 1164) described the possible paleobiology of their asteroid, Calliasterella americana (herein considered Calyptactis america- nus). They gave several reasons why it did not feed on bivalves: the structural nature of the arms was appar- ently not strong enough to exert a strong pull, and the podia, which are longer than the adambulacral spines, would have been too long for good pulling action. They suggested that the many small spines of the aboral surface provide an “‘insulating shield" to hold sediment away from the body of the starfish. They believed that the long adambulacral spines served as sediment rakes and that they possibly formed tunnels for passage of food particles when the animal was partially buried by sediment. However, the common occurrence of C. spenceri with fenestrate bryozoans (even within the ambulacra) (Pl. 12, figs. 4, 6, 7) suggests that the species may have fed on bryozoans (Text-fig. 18). Occurrence.—Upper Mississippian (Middle Ches- terian). Locality 3. Material.—UK 115999 (holotype); USNM 441445 (topotype). unidentifiable order unidentifiable suborder unidentifiable family unidentifiable asterozoan genus and species Plate 12, figures 8, 9 Description.— Mouth frame probably adambulacral; probable adambulacrals alternating, arranged in trans- verse rows, approximately rectangular, becoming wedge-shaped toward ambulacral groove (Pl. 12, figs. 8, 9); ambulacrals not visible; interradial arc even, ap- parently without axillary; arms broad proximally and tapering evenly distally. Remarks.—' The specimen is poorly preserved, and the above characteristics do not seem sufficient to clas- sify 1t below the subclass level. This specimen occurs on a slab with a crinoid de- scribed and illustrated by Кик (1942b) as Ampelocri- nus berhardinae Kirk, 1942b (РІ. 12, fig. 8). Along with the crinoid, Kirk illustrated the above-mentioned star- fish, but provided no identification. Occurrence.— Upper Mississippian (Chesterian). Material.— USNM S-4402B (hypotype). APPENDIX 1 Reference Section Sloans Valley member of the Pennington Formation Roadcuts on U.S. Highway 27 at Sloans Valley, Ken- tucky, between Sloans Valley Post Office and small roadcut (east side of road) just north of junction with Dixie Bend Road; Pulaski County, Burnside Quadran- gle, 800 ft FEL х 1800 ft FSL, 18-F-60. Reference section for Sloans Valley member (Ettensohn et al., 1984). unit description thickness meters (ft) Lee Formation 4. Shale, dark; siderite nodules 0.46 (055) 3. Coaly horizon, sandy 0.30 (1.0) 2. Shale, very sandy, organic-rich 0.61 (2.0) 1. Sandstone interbedded with shale 0—3.66 (0—12.0) Disconformity from unit 21 to 2.7 m (9 ft) from top of unit 17 of upper shale member Pennington Formation upper shale member 21. Shale, green, weathered; missing lat- erally due to channeling 0.10 (0.3) 20. Dolostone, silty; with some ironstone 1.00 (915) 19. Shale 0.43 (1.4) 18. Siltstone, dolomitic; current ripples 0.37 (12) 17. Shale, red and green Sm (16.8) 16. Siltstone, dolomitic, very thin and ir- regularly bedded; some burrowing 2.00 (6.7) 15. Shale, maroon and green, clayey, with thin dolostone stringers and nodules 2:7 (732) Covered interval. Dixie Bend Road 4.05 (13.3) 14. Siltstone, dolomitic 0.46 (Шо) 13. Shale, dark-greenish-gray 0.61 (2.0) 12. Dolostone, silty Opis (0.5) 11. Shale, dolomitic 0.18 (0.6) 10. Dolostone, silty, massive 0.30 (1.0) 9. Shale, dark-greenish-gray 0.24 (0.8) 8. Dolostone, laminated 0.43 (1.4) 7. Shale, greenish- to reddish-gray, with zone of brecciated dolostone 0.3 m (1.0 ft) from top 1.28 (4.2) . Sandstone, fine-grained, to siltstone; à lower portion rippled, flaser-bedded; upper 0.15 m (0.5 ft) cross-bedded; grades into overlying shale . Dolostone, brown, weathers oran- gish-brown; with fossil and shale clasts; burrowed; concretionary (0.21 (0.7) . Shale, silty, red and green, chunky, with dolomitic nodules; top portion red, lower portion green; no fossils? 2.87 (9.4) . Shale, dark-gray to black, clayey; 0.91 m (3.0 ft) from top is 2.5 cm of black, carbonaceous, brittle shale with abundant productid brachiopods 4.33 (14.2) 2. Limestone, calcarenite, shaly, cross- bedded, rippled, irregular, thin, in- terbedded with shale, fossiliferous (brachiopods, bryozoans) 0.30 (1.0) . Shale, clayey, black, laminated INO) (6.3) Total upper зћаје member 28.8-29.2 (94.7-95.5) с OS 01 00), сл 4 о ыа limestone member 1. Limestone, crinoidal calcarenite; ooids; overlies and fills a burrowed, MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 69 irregular surface on dolostone below; Agassizocrinus, Pterotocrinus, Za- phrentoides?, Anthracospirifer, cri- noid columnals Total limestone member dolostone member 17. Dolostone to limestone, dolomitic, massive, vuggy; some laminae; forms ledge with limestone member above; upper 0.61 m (2.0 ft) brownish, rest light gray; upper 0.76 m (2.6 ft) thin- ner bedded with shale partings 16. Shale, gray; three thin dolostone beds in upper 0.40 m (1.3 ft); burrowed calcisiltite bed (0.25 m [10 in]) (do- lomitic?); calcisiltite, rippled, 0.18 m (0.6 ft) thick, 0.3 m (1.0 ft) above base 15. Limestone, laminated with some pebbles, brachiopodal and pelecy- podal; convex-up shells, small pe- lecypods, Orthotetes, other brachio- pods, burrows 14. Shale, greenish-gray 13. Limestone, calcilutite, irregular, rub- bly, uppermost 0.5 m (1.6 ft) brec- ciated and filled with dark-greenish shale and quartz pebbles 12. Shale, dolomitic 11. Dolostone, massive, rubbly and brec- ciated at top 10. Shale, dolomitic 9. Dolostone, laminated, mud chips, contorted bedding, birdseyes 8. Shale, with fossiliferous limestone lenses 7. Limestone, fine-grained calcarenite, fossiliferous, brecciated at top of ex- posure zone 6. Shale 5. Limestone, silty, some fossils, locally dolomitic 4. Shale, dolomitic 3. Limestone, calcarenitic, crinoidal and ooid grains, cross-bedded, dolomite- filled burrows 2. Dolostone, massive, vuggy, large sty- lolites; lower 0.8 m (2.6 ft) may be rubbly, shaly dolostone that pinches out into dolostone 1. Dolostone and limestone, dolomitic, massive; some laminae, vuggy, some fossil fragments Total dolostone member Sloans Valley member 7. Shale, gray to black, fissile, bryozo- ans, brachiopods, Archimedes, Pter- otocrinus 6. Limestone, skeletal calcarenite, cross- bedded, brownish-gray, Composita, Pterotocrinus, Agassizocrinus, Lyro- pora 5. Shale, calcareous, brownish- to greenish-gray, with a few limestone lenses, both very fossiliferous (flat- tened fenestrates, brachiopods) 0.24-0.30 0.24-0.30 2:19 2.04 0.18 (9:37 0.91 Ош 03 (0:55 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.03 0.58 0.09 1.16 0.98 1.34 7, 0.61 0.61 1.65 (0.8-1.0) (0.8-1.0) (7.2) (6.7) (0.6) (1.2) (3.0) (0.4) (1.2) (1.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.5) (0.1) (1.9) (0.3) (3.8) (3.2) (4.4) (38.3) (2.0) (2.0) (5.4) 4. Shale, marly, and interbedded no- dular limestone, very fossiliferous 1.09 (3.6) 3. Interbedded shale and thin-bedded limestone, fossiliferous 10 (3.3) N Limestone, massive skeletal and ool- itic calcarenite, pinches out in both northwest and southeast directions, cross-bedded (109°), channeling, scouring . Interbedded shale and thin-bedded limestone, very fossiliferous, cri- noids, Pterotocrinus, Zaphrentoides, brachiopods, bryozoans, unit thins where overlying limestone thickens Total Sloans Valley member 0-4.88 (0-16.0) У 1.4–2.13 (4.5—7.0) 6.3-12.0 (20.8–39.3) Bangor Limestone 7 6. Limestone, medium- to thin-bedded, skeletal calcarenite, thin shale part- ings 5239 5. Limestone, thin- to medium-bedded, skeletal calcarenite, with shale part- ings 215 (7.0) 4. Limestone, cross-bedded, skeletal calcarenite, intraclasts, Zaphren- toides, crinoids, Agassizocrinus, Pen- (17.5) tremites 0.88 (2:9) 3. Limestone, crinoidal calcarenite, grading up into shale horizon 0855 (1.8) 2. Limestone, shaly, calcarenite 0.12 (0.4) 1. Limestone, fossiliferous calcarenite, Agassizocrinus 0.30 (1.0) Total Bangor Limestone 9:3 (30.6) Hartselle Formation (incomplete) 2. Limestone, dolostone, calcisiltite, productid brachiopods 0.13 (0.5) 1. Shale, silty, gray-green, chunky 1.10 (3.6) APPENDIX 2 Locality Register апа Section Descriptions Collections for this study were made at seven 10- calities, listed below and shown on Text-figure 1. Col- lection sites are located on 7.5' topographic quadrangle maps using the Carter coordinate system, an alpha- numeric grid system used throughout Kentucky. De- scriptions of the sections at each locality are given below. Most collecting at the quarry localities was done from spoil piles of discarded shale and limestone of the Sloans Valley member of the Pennington Forma- tion. These dumps provided specimens that were bet- ter exposed in or weathered free from the matrix; how- ever, it was difficult to determine from which beds such fossils came. Because the Sloans Valley member weath- ers so quickly, most outcrop and quarry exposures soon become covered and poorly exposed. Locality 1.— Cincinnati-Southern Railroad cut (old bed) near Sloans Valley, Pulaski County, Burnside Quadrangle; Carter coordinate location 1200 ft FNL 70 BULLETIN 330 x 2400 ft FEL, 14-F-60, and along the eastern part of 14-F-60 and the southwestern part of 13-F-60. This is the famous collection locality. The reference section is nearby. Very little material is found here now; the banks are all overgrown. Locality 2.—Southern Railroad cut (new bed), where Garland Road crosses over railroad, near Tatesville, Pulaski County, Burnside Quadrangle, 1200 ft FWL x 2400 ft FSL, 16-F-60. unit description thickness meters (ft) Pennington Formation dolostone member (lowest bed only) 1. Limestone, dolomitic, to dolostone, massive, some fossils (Pentremites pyriformis, Composita, fenestellids) 0.61 (2.0) Total measured dolostone member 0.61 (2.0) Sloans Valley member 7. Shale, greenish-brown, somewhat fossiliferous at southern end of ex- posure, very fossiliferous at northern end; Pterotocrinus spp. (P. depressus, very abundant, P. acutus, abundant), Tholocrinus, Pentremites, crinoid co- lumnals, Cleiothyridina, Zaphren- toides, Archimedes, ramose bryozo- ans 0.76-1.45 а 12,554.75) 6. Limestone, irregularly bedded to no- dular-bedded, skeletal calcarenite, shale clasts, internal bedding con- torted, very fossiliferous, commonly good preservation of crinoids, Ar- chimedes 0.18-0.30 (0.6-1.0) 5. Shale, fossiliferous (Pterotocrinus de- pressus, Archimedes, Cleiothyridina) 0.08-0.23 (0.25-0.75) 4. Limestone, as in bed 6, Agassizocri- Aus, other crinoids, crinoid colum- nals, Lyropora, Archimedes, Anthra- cospirifer, Zaphrentoides 0.30-0.46 (1.0-1.5) 3. Shale, calcareous, medium-gray, with some limestone stringers and nodu- lar-bedded limestone, both highly fossiliferous; Pterotocrinus depressus (more abundant in this shale than at any other locality); Archimedes 0.3-0.76 (1.0-2.5) 2. Limestone, crinoidal calcarenite; at southern end it is massive, cross-bed- ded, and contains ooids; grades lat- erally northward into limestone with interbedded shale; one limestone bed (0.3 m from bottom) is a Pterotocri- nus coquina; other abundant fossils include: Archimedes, Cleiothyridina, Anthracospirifer, Zaphrentoides, Pentremites, Acrocrinus, Tholocrinus, Pterotocrinus 0.9-1.52 (3.0–5.0) 1. Shale with some thin limestone beds; shale, calcareous; limestone and shale fossiliferous 0.9 (3.0) Total Sloans Valley member 4.4 (1555) Bangor Limestone (incomplete) 2. Limestone, argillaceous, with thin shale partings; grades into shale above and massive limestone below; very fossiliferous, with crinoids, brachio- pods, and bryozoans 0.46 (1.5) . Limestone, argillaceous, crinoidal; some chert; massive- to medium- bedded 7.47 (24.5) — Total Bangor Limestone 7.93 (26.0) Locality 3.—Strunk Construction Company Quarry near Tatesville, Pulaski County, Burnside Quadrangle, 2200 ft FWL x 2200 ft FSL, 15-F-60. unit description thickness meters (ft) Pennington Formation dolostone member (lowest bed only) 1. Dolostone to dolomitic limestone, skeletal calcarenite, massive, dark- gray, finely laminated when not bio- turbated; abundant vugs as large as 0.3 m containing dogtooth spar cal- cite, dolomite, barite, celestite, stron- tiantite; large styolites up to 0.15 m (0.5 ft) high 1.37-4.42 (4.5-14.5) Total dolostone member 1.37-4.42 (4.5-14.5) Sloans Valley member 11. Shale, clayey, fissile, dark-gray, fos- siliferous with impressions of fenes- tellids and Aviculopecten?; lower half. contains fossils and irregular lenses of fossiliferous limestone with Lyropo- rella, Archimedes, Agassizocrinus, Tholocrinus, Pterotocrinus spp., P. depressus, and P. acutus 0.46–0.9 (1.5-3.0) 10. Limestone and shale interbedded; limestone very fossiliferous, shale marly; may change laterally Ж (0.5) 9. Shale 0.15 (0.5) 8. Interbedded limestone and shale; limestone, thin-bedded, calcarenite with pelmatozoans; may change lat- erally 0.46 (15) 7. Limestone, dolomitic, wackestone- packstone, abundant fossil fragments (bryozoans, echinoderms); may change laterally 0.40–0.61 (1.3-2.0) 6. Shale, clayey, fossils sparse 0–0.69 (0–2.25) 5. Shale with limestone interbeds; lime- stone irregular, lenses in and out; fos- sils in both; changes laterally 0.46 (1.55 4. Limestone, calcirudite; changes lat- erally 0.30 E) 3. Shale 0.08 (0.25) 2. Limestone, calcirudite-calcisiltite, fossiliferous; Pterotocrinus, crinoid columnals, Zaphrentoides; may change laterally 0.46 (11.5) 1. Shale, medium-dark gray, clayey, fis- sile, with limestone stringers lensing MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN in and out; may change laterally 0.30 (1.0) Total Sloans Valley member 3.5–4.2 (11.5-13.8) Bangor Limestone (incomplete) 1. Limestone, bluish-gray, massive, ar- gillaceous in part, some chert; top surface rich in fossils, including cri- noid debris, brachiopods, ramose bryozoans, Archimedes, and other fe- nestellids 9722 (30.25) Total Bangor Limestone 9D (30.25) Locality 4. — Somerset Stone Company Quarry (Ban- gor and Pennington strata no longer present because of quarrying), Pulaski County, Somerset Quadrangle; Carter coordinate location 700 ft FWL x 2500 ft FSL, 25-H-60. The Sloans Valley member was removed be- fore the section could be measured. Locality 5. — Laurel County Quarry (now abandoned and flooded); Laurel County, Billows Quadrangle; Car- ter coordinate location 300 ft FNL x 1800 ft FWL, 3-H-63. unit description thickness meters (ft) Pennington Formation dolostone member (only lower part exposed) 3. Interbedded dolostone and shale, no fossils? 0.91 (3.0) 2. Dolostone, massive, bluish-gray, weathers yellowish-buff, bioclastic, somewhat arenaceous, with crinoid columnals, Agassizocrinus, Pentre- mites pyriformis, Composita, Anthra- cospirifer, and productids 0.46–0.61 (1.5-2.0) 1. Interbedded dolostone and shale; basal dolostone fossiliferous with Agassizocrinus, Composita, Anthra- cospirifer, Archimedes, Lyropora, and other fenestrates; undersides of slabs have numerous horizontal burrows 0-0.99 (0-3.25) Total measured dolostone member 2.36-2.51 (7.75-8.25) Sloans Valley member 18. Shale, clayey, light-brown, fissile; few fossils 0.58-0.76 (1.9-2.5) 17. Shale with some limestone interbeds; shale marly, bluish-gray, highly fos- siliferous (Composita, Anthracospi- rifer, crinoid fragments, and bryozo- ans) limestone 5-8 cm thick, argillaceous, bioclastic calcarenite, may be irregularly bedded, with fe- nestrate and ramose bryozoans, Ап- thracospirifer, other brachiopods, cri- noids, sharks’ teeth; grades laterally into unit 16 0.30-1.07 (1.0-3.5) 16. Limestone, argillaceous, arenaceous, poorly sorted, indistinct to irregular bedding, rubbly weathering; in part highly encrinal; very fossiliferous, crinoids, sharks’ teeth, Anthracospi- rifer, and fenestrate bryozoans; grades laterally and into unit 17 0.38-1.40 (1.25-4.6) 15: 1 = о “се N Shale, marly, bluish-gray, irregular rubbly weathering, fossil fragments throughout; some layers encrinal, other layers with fenestrate bryozo- ans . Limestone to dolomitic limestone, massive, arenaceous, bioclastic, bluish-gray, with crinoid debris, Pter- otocrinus, Agassizocrinus, Anthraco- spirifer, Composita, Zaphrentoides, and fenestrate bryozoan fragments; lower 10 cm contains abundant clasts of calcilutite, phosphate pebbles, and transported fossils, large calcilutite lithoclasts are in irregular shapes up to 10 em in width and are rounded; these lithoclasts contain fossils of bel- lerophontids, other large gastropods, a straight nautiloid, trilobite pygidia, and corals; pebbles are rounded and transported, some are worn sharks’ teeth; transported fossils include bryozoans, crinoid columnals, Agas- sizocrinus infrabasal cones, Pteroto- crinus wing plates, predominantly P. acutus, and brachiopods; pyrite is also present . Limestone, bioclastic, arenaceous, dark-gray, friable, very fossiliferous; no whole fossils; fossils transported and include Agassizocrinus infrabasal cones, Pterotocrinus wing plates, pre- dominantly P. acutus, crinoid colum- nals, Zaphrentoides, single Anthra- cospirifer valves, and rounded phosphatic pebbles; pyrite present, unit is iron-stained . Shale, clayey, fissile, few fossils; up- per 2.5 cm may have abundant Pter- otocrinus wing plates; in the eastern portion of the quarry this unit thick- ens and contains flaser bedding; shale is silty . Limestone, bluish-gray, massive, coarse-grained, bioclastic, with Agas- sizocrinus, Pterotocrinus, and An- thracospirifer fragments; lower 12.5 cm in western end is cross-bedded; in eastern end irregular bedding . Shale, clayey to silty; in the eastern part of quarry unit thickens; minor flaser bedding in lower 0.3 m (1 ft) . Limestone, arenaceous, calcarenite, laminated, no fossils, found only in western part of quarry . Shale, siltstone, and sandstone in- terbedded, flaser-bedded; unusual surface markings (tool markings?) on some flaser beds; some pyrite, many dark carbonaceous fragments scat- tered over the bedding surface; irreg- ular asymmetric ripple marks; abun- dant and diverse trails on surface . Sandstone, calcareous, to arenaceous limestone, white to light-gray; well- 0-0.38 0.40 0-0.27 0.30-0.34 0.40-0.70 0.07-0.84 0.08 0.15—0.30 71 (0-1.25) (1.3) (0-0.9) (0.1-1.1) (1:359:3) (0.25-2.75) (0.25) (1.5-1.0) 92 BULLETIN 330 developed cross-bedding; contains flat clay pebbles (1—2 cm); upper surface with irregular ripple marks; sand- stone is calcareously cemented and contains marine fossils; grades later- ally into very arenaceous limestone, containing fossils 0.15-0.46 (0.5-1.5) 6. Shale, siltstone, and sandstone; flas- er-bedded, as in unit 8 0.03-0.15 (0.1-0.5) 5. Sandstone, calcareous, to arenaceous limestone; in eastern portion it is cross-bedded, irregularly bedded with 5 cm shale parting in middle; in west- ern portion sandstone is much thin- ner and has horizontal burrows 0.03-0.53 (0.1—1.75) 4. Зћаје 0.3 (0.1) 3. Limestone, light-gray, biocalcirudite; Occurs in western part of quarry 0-0.15 (0—0.5) 2. Limestone, argillaceous, medium- gray, irregularly bedded to pseudon- odular; internal bedding contorted; very fossiliferous; Anthracospirifer, crinoids, found in western part of quarry 0-0.30 (0-1.0) 1. Shale, clayey, dark-gray, fissile, sparsely fossiliferous, fenestellids 0.30-0.46 (1.0-1.5) Total Sloans Valley member #40) (23.0) Bangor Limestone (incomplete) 2. Interbedded limestone and shale, very fossiliferous, delicate fossils, echi- noids, crinoids, brachiopods, bryo- zoans, trilobite pygidia, some pyrite; unit is gradational between the Ban- gor Limestone and the Sloans Valley member 0—0.08 (0–0.25) . Limestone, argillaceous, bluish-gray, massive, skeletal calcarenite; dolo- mite- or calcite-filled vugs; some chert; upper surface may contain Ar- chimedes and crinoid columnals; sur- faces below shale partings reveal Аг- chimedes, large ramose bryozoans, fenestellids, large rugose corals, Ал- thracospirifer, Composita, and a few crinoid columnals HOT (23.04-) Total measured Bangor Limestone p (ОЭ) E Locality 6. — Exposure above small, man-made farm pond at Clover Bottom. The thin, incomplete section probably occurs near the base of the Sloans Valley member, but could not be placed exactly for lack of a marker horizon; the section was not measured or de- scribed. Jackson County, Big Hill Quadrangle; 2400 ft FSL x 300 ft FEL, 21-M-64. Locality 7.—Small roadcut on Long Branch Road, approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) from its junction with U. S. Highway 421, southeast of Morrill. The thin, incomplete section in the Sloans Valley member occurs just above the Bangor Limestone; the section was not measured or described. Jackson County, Big Hill Quadrangle; 200 ft FWL x 1100 ft FSL, 16-M-65. REFERENCES CITED Agassiz, L. 1843. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles. Neuchatel and Soleure, vol. 3, 390 pp. Ager, D. V. 1963. Principles of paleoecology. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Со, 37 1, pp: Alexander, R. R. 1984. Comparative hydrodynamic stability of brachiopod shells on current-scoured arenaceous substrates. Lethaia, vol. 17, pp. 17-32. Angelin, N. P. 1878. Iconographia crinoideorum in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fos- silium. Holmiae, Sampson and Wallin, 62 pp. Ausich, W. I. 1980. А model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. J. Paleontol., vol. 54, pp. 273-288. Ausich, W. I., and Bottjer, D. J. 1982. Tiering in suspension-feeding communities on soft sub- strata throughout the Phanerozoic. Science, vol. 216, pp. 173, 174. Bassler, R. S. 1935. Theclassification ofthe Edrioasteroidea. Smithsonian Misc. -Coll vol. 93, No. 8, pp. 1-11. 1936. New species of American Edrioasteroidea. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 95, No. 6, 33 pp. Bassler, R., and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geol. Soc. Am., Spec. Paper 45, 734 pp. Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British As- soc. Adv. Sci., Rept., pp. 916-923. 1890. British fossil crinoids. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 5, pp. 306-334, 373-388, 485, 486; vol. 6, pp. 222-235. Baumiller, T., and Plotnick, R. E. 1985. Function of wing plates in Pterotocrinus. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. with Progr., vol. 17, p. 4. Bell, B. M. 1976. А study of North American Edrioasteroidea. New York State Mus., Mem. 21, 446 pp. 1977. Respirator schemes in the class Edrioasteroidea. J. Pa- leontol., vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 619—632. Billings, E. 1858. On the Asteriadae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geol. Surv. Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian organic remains, dec. 3, pp. 75-85. Bjork, P. R., Goldberg, P. S., and Kesling, R. V. 1968a. New ophiuroid from Chester Series of Illinois. J. Paleontol., vol. 42, pp. 197-200. 1968b. Mouth frame of the ophiuroid Onychaster. Michigan Univ., Contrib. Mus. Paleontol., vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 46—60. Blainville, H. M. D. 1830. in Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, directed by F. G. Cuvier. F. G. Levrault (Strasbourg), le Normant (Paris), vol. 60. Breimer, А., and Lane, N. С. 1978. Ecology and paleoecology. in Moore, R. C., and Teichert, C. [eds.], Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press, pt. T, Echinodermata 2, vol. 1, pp. T316-T347. Broadhead, T. W. 1981. Carboniferous camerate crinoids, Subfamily Dichocrini- nae. Palaeontographica, Abt. A, Bd. 176, 157 pp. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 73 1985. Evolution of Carboniferous hexacrinitacea (Crinoidea, Ca- merata). Compte Rendu. Ninth Internat. Congr. Carbon- iferous Stratigraphy and Geology (1979), vol. 5, pp. 205- 21155 Broadhead, T. W., and Strimple, H. L. 1980. Hyrtanecrinus, a new Carboniferous camerate crinoid ge- nus from eastern North America. J. Paleontol., vol. 54, pp. 35-44. Brown, T. 1849. Illustrations of the fossil conchology of Great Britain and Ireland with descriptions and localities of all species. Lon- don, 273 pp. Brower, J. C. 1966. Functional morphology of Calceocrinidae with description of some new species. J. Paleontol., vol. 40, pp. 613-634. Buch, L. von 1842. Beitrage zur Bestimmung der Gebirgsformation in Russ- land. Karsten und Dechen's Archiv für Mineral., pp. 521— 540. Buckman, S. S. 1906. Brachiopod nomenclature. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 18, pp. 323-327. Burdick, D. W., and Strimple, H. L. 1969. Revision of some Chesterian inadunate crinoids. Univ. Kansas, Paleontol. Contrib., vol. 40, pp. 1-14. 1971. Crinoids from the Beech Creek Limestone, lower Golconda Group, St. Clair County, Illinois, in W. M. Furnish et al., Faunal studies of the type Chesterian, Upper Mississippian of southwestern Illinois. Univ. Kansas, Paleontol. Con- trib., Paper 51, pp. 15-47. 1973. Flexible crinoids from the Fayetteville Formation of north- eastern Oklahoma. J. Paleontol., vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 226– 230. 1982. Genevievian and Chesterian crinoids of Alabama. Geol. Surv. Alabama, Bull. 121, 277 pp. Butts, C. 1918. Descriptions and correlation of the Mississippian forma- tions of western Kentucky. Kentucky Geol. Surv., ser. 4, Geol. Repts., 119 pp. 1922. The Mississippian Series of eastern Kentucky. Kentucky Geol. Surv., ser. 6, vol. 7, 188 pp. Casseday, S. A., and Lyon, S. S. 1862. Description of two new genera and eight new species of fossil Crinoidea from the rocks of Indiana and Kentucky. Am. Acad. Arts and Sciences, Proc., vol. 5, pp. 16-31. Chesnut, D. R. 1980. [MS] Echinoderms from the lower part of the Pennington Formation (Chesterian) in south-central Kentucky. Lex- ington, Univ. Kentucky, M. S. thesis, 178 pp. Chesnut, D. R., and Ettensohn, F. R. 1984. Life mode of Pterotocrinus in the lower Pennington (lower Carboniferous) of east-central Kentucky. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. with Programs, vol. 16, p. 128. Clark, A. H. 1921. A monograph of existing crinoids. U. S. Natl. Mus., Bull., vol. 82, 795 pp. Clarke, J. M. 1901. New Agelacrinites. New York State Mus., Ann. Rept. 55 (Bull. 49), pp. 182-198. Claus, C. F. W. 1880. Grundzuge der Zoologie. Marburg und Leipzig, vol. 1, 4th ed., 821 pp., vol. 2, 522 pp. Conrad, T. A. 1840. Third annual report on the palaeontological department of the survey. New York Geol. Surv., Ann. Rept. 4, pp. 199- 207. Daudin, F. M. 1800. Recueil de mémoires et notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de mollusques, de vers et de zoophytes. Paris, Fuchs, 48 pp. Day, R. W., and Osman, R. W. 1981. Predation by Patiria miniata (Asteroidea) on bryozoans: Prey diversity may depend on the mechanism of succession. Oecologia (Berlin), vol. 51, pp. 300-309. Defrance, J. L. M. 1819. in Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, M. F. Cuvier (dir.), Le Normant (Paris), F. G. Levrault (Strasbourg), vol. 14, pp. 467, 468. Ehlers, G. M., and Kesling, R. V. 1958. Cyclic pattern of ambulacral covering plates in Discocystis laudoni Bassler and its taxonomic implication. Univ. Mich., Contrib. Mus. Paleontol., vol. 14, No. 15, pp. 265-276. Englund K. J. 1976. Geologic map of the Grahn Quadrangle, Carter County, Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv., Geol. Quad. Map GQ-1262. Englund K. J., Roen, J. B., and DeLaney, A. O. 1964. Geology of the Middlesboro North Quadrangle, Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv., Geol. Quad. Map GQ-300. Englund, K. J., and Windolph, J. F. 1971. Geology of the Carter Caves Sandstone (Mississippian) in northeastern Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 750- D, pp. D-99-D-104. 1975. Geologic map of the Olive Hill Quadrangle, northeastern Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv., Geol. Quad. Map GQ-1270. Ettensohn, F. R. 1975a. [MS] Stratigraphy and paleoenvironmental aspects of Up- per Mississippian rocks, east-central Kentucky. Urbana, Univ. Illinois, Ph. D. dissert., 320 pp. 1975b. The autecology of Agassizocrinus lobatus. J. Paleontol., vol. 49, pp. 1044-1061. 1977. Effects of synsedimentary tectonic activity on the upper Newman Limestone and Pennington Formation, in Dever, С. R., Jr., Hoge, Н. P., Hester, М. C., and Ettensohn, F. R. [eds.], Stratigraphic evidence for late Paleozoic tecton- ism in northeastern Kentucky: Field Trip Guideb., Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Eastern Sect., Ann. Mtg. Kentucky Geol. Surv., ser. 10, pp. 18-29. 1978. Acrothoracic barnacle borings from the Chesterian of east- ern Kentucky and Alabama. Southeastern Geology, vol. 20, pp. 27-31. 1980. Analternative to the barrier-shoreline model for deposition of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian rocks in northeastern Kentucky. Geol. Soc. Am., Bull., vol. 91, No. 3, pt. 1, pp. 130-135; pt. 2, pp. 934-1056. 1981. Field Trip 4: Part II, Mississippian—Pennsylvanian bound- ary in northeastern Kentucky, in Roberts, T. G. [ed.], Geol. Soc. Am., 1981 Cincinnati Field Trip Guideb., Am. Geol. Inst., Falls Church, VA., vol. 1, pp. 195-257. Ettensohn, F. R., and Bliefnick, D. M. 1982. Conodonts from a section of upper Newman Limestone and Pennington Formation (middle and upper Chester), northeastern Kentucky. J. Paleontol., vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 1482-1487. Ettensohn, F. R., and Chesnut, D. R. 1979. Stratigraphy and depositional environments in the Upper Hartselle, Bangor, and Pennington Formations of south- central Kentucky, Stop 2, Day 6, in Ettensohn, F. R., and Dever, б. R., Jr., [eds.], Guidebook, Field Trip No. 4, Carboniferous Geology from the Appalachian Basin to the Illinois Basin through eastern Ohio and Kentucky. Ninth Internat. Congr. Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology. Lexington, Univ. Kentucky, pp. 194-201. 74 BULLETIN 330 1985а. Echinoderm paleoecology and paleoenvironments from the Glen Dean / Bangor and lower Pennington (Chesterian), south-central Kentucky. Compte Rendu. Ninth Internat. Congr. Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology (1979), vol. 5, pp. 349-360. 1985b. Depositional environments and stratigraphy of the Pen- nington Formation (upper Visean-Namurian A), east-cen- tral and eastern Kentucky, U. S. A. Compte Rendu. Tenth Internat. Congr. Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology (1983), vol. 3, pp. 269—283. Ettensohn, F. R., and Peppers, R. A. 1979. Palynology and biostratigraphy of Pennington shales and coals at selected sites in northeastern Kentucky. J. Paleon- tol., vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 453-474. Ettensohn, F. R., Rice, C. L., Dever, G. R., Jr., and Chesnut, D. R. 1984. Slade and Paragon formations.— New stratigraphic no- menclature for Mississippian rocks along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1605-B, 37 pp. Ferm, J. C., Horne, J. C., Swinchatt, J. P., and Whaley, P. W. 1971. Carboniferous depositional environments in northeastern Kentucky: Geol. Soc. Kentucky Guidebook, Ann. Spring Field Conf. Kentucky Geol. Surv., ser. 10, 30 pp. Fisher, M. P. 1981. [MS] Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Pennington Formation, Upper Mississippian, in south-central Ken- tucky. Cincinnati, Univ. Cincinnati, M. S. thesis, 234 pp. Fleming, J. 1828. Ап history of British animals, exhibiting their descriptive characters and systematical arrangement of the genera and species of quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fishes, Mollusca, and Radiata of the United Kingdom . . . . Edinburgh, Bell and Bradfate, 565 pp. Frazier, W. 1975. Celestite in the Mississippian Pennington Formation, cen- tral Tennessee. Southeastern Geology, vol. 16, pp. 241— 248. Galloway, J. J., and Kaska, H. V. 1957. Genus Pentremites апа its species. Geol. Soc. Am., Mem. 69, 104 pp. Gervais, P. 1841. Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles, supplement, vol. 1, pp. 470-475. Girty, G. H. 1910. New genera and species of Carboniferous fossils from the Fayetteville Shale of Arkansas. New Y ork Acad. Sci., Ann., vol. 20, pp. 189-238. Gray, J. E. 1840. Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum. Monogr. 12, 42nd ed., London, 63 pp. Gregory, J. W. 1896. The classification of Palaeozoic echinoderms of the group Ophiuroidea. Zool. Soc. London, Proc. (1896), pp. 1028- 1044. 1897. On Echinocystis and Paleodiscus — two genera of Echi- noidea. Geol. Soc. London, Q. J., vol. 53, pp. 123-136. Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen: Allgemeine Gründzuge der organischen Formenwissenschaft, mechan- isch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-theorie. Berlin, G. Reimer, vol. 2, 462 pp. Hall, J. 1858. Report on the geological survey of the state of Iowa em- bracing the results of investigations made during portions of the years 1855—1857. Iowa Geol. Surv., vol. 1, pt. 2, 724 pp. 1860. Paleontology of Iowa. Yowa Geol. Surv., Rept., suppl. 1, pt. 2., 94 pp. 1861a. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea from the Carbon- iferous rocks of the Mississippi Valley. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist vol ppr 261-328: 1861b. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils Јтот the Carboniferous rocks of the Mississippi Valley. Iowa Geol. Surv., Rept. Invest., pp. 1-19. 1864. Contributions to paleontology. 16th Ann. Rept., Regents of the Univ. of the State of New York on the condition of the State Cab. Nat. Hist., Albany, pp. 3-226. 1883. Bryozoans of the Upper Helderberg and Hamilton groups. Albany Inst. Sci., Trans., vol. 10, pp. 145-197. Hambach, G. 1903. A revision of the Blastoidea with proposed new classification and description of new species. Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 13, pp. 1—67. Heckel, P. H. 1972. Recognition of ancient shallow marine environments, in Rigby, J. K., and Hamblin, W. K. [eds.], Recognition of ancient sedimentary environments. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ. 16, pp. 226-286. Horowitz, A. S. 1965. Crinoids from the Glen Dean Limestone of southern In- diana and Kentucky. Indiana Geol. Surv. Bull., vol. 34, pp. 34-52. Horowitz, A. S., Macurda, D. B., and Waters, J. A. 1981. Taxonomic revision of Pentremites Say (Blastoidea). Geol. Soc. Am., Abst. with Programs, vol. 13, p. 281. Horowitz, A. S., Mamet, B. L., Neves, R., Potter, P. Е., and Rexroad, C. B. 1979. Carboniferous paleontological zonation and intercontinen- tal correlation of the Fowler No. 1 Traders core, Scott County, Tennessee, U. S. A. Southeastern Geology, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 205-228. Horowitz, A. S., and Strimple, H. L. 1974. Chesterian echinoderm zonation in eastern United States. Compte Rendu. Seventh Internat. Congr. Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology (1971), pp. 207-220. : Hyman, L. H. 1955. The invertebrates: Echinodermata, vol. 4. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 763 pp. Jackson, R. T. 1896. Studies of Palaechinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., vol. 7, pp. 171-254. 1912. Phylogeny of the Echini, with a revision of Paleozoic species. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem., vol. 7, 490 pp. Jaeckel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Palaontol. Zeitschr., vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-128. Jangoux, M. 1982. Foodand feeding mechanisms: Asteroidea, in Jangoux, М., and Lawrence, J. M. [eds.], Echinoderm nutrition. Rot- terdam, A. A. Balkema, pp. 117-159. Kesling, R. V., and Strimple, H. L. 1966. Calliasterella americana, a new starfish from the Pennsyl- vanian of Illinois. J. Paleontol., vol. 40, Мо. 5, pp. 1157- 1166, pls. 151-153, 2 text-figs. Kier, P. M. 1953. A new lower Carboniferous echinoid from North America. Geol. Mag., vol. 90, pp. 65-69. 1958. New American Paleozoic echinoids. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1-23. King, W. 1859. On Gwynia, Dielasma, and Macandrevia, three new gen- MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 15 era. Dublin Univ., Zool. Bot. Assoc., Proc., vol. 1, pt. 3, pp. 256-262. Kirk, E. 1937. Eupachycrinus and related Carboniferous crinoid genera. J. Paleontol., vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 598-607. 1938. Five new genera of Carboniferous Crinoidea Inadunata. Washington Acad. Sci., J., vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 158-172. 1939. Two new genera of Carboniferous inadunate crinoids. Washington Acad. Sci., J., vol. 29, pp. 469-473. 1940a. Anartiocrinus, a new crinoid genus from the Mississippian. Am. J. Sci., vol. 238, No. 1, pp. 47-55. 1940b. Seven new genera of Carboniferous Crinoidea Inadunata. Washington Acad. Sci., J., vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 321-334. 1942a. Rhopocrinus, a new fossil inadunate crinoid. U. S. Nat. Mus., Proc., vol. 92, No. 3144, pp. 151-155. 1942b. Ampelocrinus, a new crinoid genus from the Upper Mis- sissippian. Am. J. Sci., vol. 240, pp. 22-28. 1944a. Aphelecrinus, a new inadunate crinoid genus from the Up- per Mississippian. Am. J. Sci., vol. 242, Мо. 4, pp. 190– 203. 1944b. Cymbiocrinus, a new inadunate crinoid genus from the Upper Mississippian. Am. J. Sci., vol. 242, No. 5, pp. 233- 245. Knapp, W. D. 1969. Declinida, a new order of late Paleozoic inadunate crinoids. J. Paleontol., vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 340-391. Kützing, F. T. 1849. Species Algarum. F. A. Brockhaus, Lipsiae, 922 pp. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. Lamarck, Paris, vol. 2, 568 pp. Lambert, J., and Thiery, P. 1910. Essai de nomenclature raisonné des Echinides. Libraire Ferriere, Chaumont, pp. 81-160. Lane, N. G. 1963. А silicified Morrowan brachiopod faunule from the Bird Spring Formation, southern Nevada. J. Paleontol., vol. 37, pp. 379-392. 1975. The anal sac of Aesiocrinus, a Pennsylvanian inadunate crinoid. J. Paleontol., vol. 49, pp. 638-645. 1984. Predation and survival among inadunate crinoids. Paleo- biology, vol. 10, pp. 453-458. Laudon, L. R. 1941. New crinoid fauna from the Pitkin Limestone of north- eastern Oklahoma. J. Paleontol., vol. 15, pp. 384-391. Laudon, L. R., Parks, J. M., and Spreng, A. C. 1952. Mississippian crinoid fauna from the Banff Formation, Sunwapta Pass, Alberta. J. Paleontol., vol. 26, pp. 544- 55; Leske, N. б. 1778. Jacobi Theodori Klein naturalis dispositio echinoderma- tum, ..., edita et descriptionibus novisque inventis et syn- onomis auctorem aucta. Leipzig, 278 pp. Lewis, R. Q., Sr., and Thaden, R. E. 1965. Geologic map of the Cumberland City Quadrangle, south- ern Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv., Geol. Quad. Map GQ- 475. Lonsdale, W. 1839. Corals, in Murchinson, К. L, The Silurian System, pt. 2, Organic Remains. John Murray, London, pp. 675-694. Lyon, S. S. 1857. Palaeontological report. Kentucky Geol. Surv., ser. 1, vol. 3, pp. 465-498. 1860. Descriptions of four new species of Blastoidea from the Subcarboniferous rocks of Kentucky. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 628-634. Lyon, S. S., and Casseday, S. A. 1859. Descriptions of nine new species of Crinoidea from the Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana and Kentucky. Am. J. Sci., ser. 2, vol. 28, pp. 233-246. 1860. Description of nine new species of Crinoidea from the Sub- carboniferous rocks of Indiana and Kentucky. Am. J. Sci., ser. 2, vol. 29, pp. 68-79. Macfarlane, J. 1890. An American geological railway guide. D. Appleton and Company, New York, 426 pp. Macurda, D. B., Jr., and Meyer, D. І. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature, vol. 247, pp. 394-396. Matsumoto, H. 1915. А new classification of the Ophiuroidea: with descriptions of new genera and species. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc., vol. 67, pp. 43-92. McChesney, J. H. 1860. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Paleozoic rocks of the western states. Chicago Acad. Sci., Ext. Trans., vol. 1, 76 pp. 1865. Plates illustrating in part the new species of fossils, from the Paleozoic rocks of the western states; and two new species, noticed March, 1860. Chicago Acad. Sci., Trans., 1 un- numbered page, pls. 1-11. 1867. Descriptions of fossils from the Paleozoic rocks of the west- ern states, with illustrations. Chicago Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, pp. 1-57, pls. 1—9. McKinney, F. K. 1978. Some paleoenvironments of the coiled fenestrate Ar- chimedes. Geol. Soc. Am., Abst. with Programs, vol. 10, рые 1979. Some paleoenvironments of the coiled fenestrate bryozoan Archimedes, in Larwood, G. P., and Abbott, M. B. [eds.], Advances in bryozoology. Systematics Assoc. Spec. Vol. 13. Academic Press, London, pp. 321-336. 1983. Asexual colony multiplication by fragmentation: an im- portant mode of genetic longevity in the Carboniferous bryozoan Archimedes. Paleobiology, vol. 9, pp. 35-43. McKinney, F. K., and Gault, Н. W. 1980. Paleoenvironment of Late Mississippian fenestrate bryo- zoans, eastern United States. Lethaia, vol. 13, pp. 127— 146. M’Coy, F. 1844a. in Griffith, R., A synopsis of the characters of the Carbon- iferous limestone fossils of Ireland. University Press, Dub- lin, 274 pp. 1844b. A synopsis of the Carboniferous limestone fossils of Ireland. McGloshan and Gill, Dublin, 207 pp. 1848. On some new fossil fish of the Carboniferous period. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. 2, pp. 115-133. 1849a. On some new Palaeozoic Echinodermata. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. 3, pp. 244-254. 1849b. On some new genera and species of Paleozoic corals and Foraminifera. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. 3, pp. 119-136. 1851. On some new Silurian Mollusca. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. 7, pp. 45-63. Meek, F. B., and Worthen, А. Н. 1865. Descriptions of new Crinoidea, etc., from the Carboniferous rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc., ser. 1, vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 155-166. 1868. Paleontology of Illinois. Illinois Geol. Surv., vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 289-565. 1869. Descriptions of new Carboniferous fossils from the western 76 BULLETIN 330 states. Acad. Маі. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc. for 1869, Мо. 2, pp. 137-168; No. 3, pp. 169-172. 1870. Descriptions of new species and genera of fossils from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc. for 1870, No. 1, pp. 22-56. 1873. Paleontology. Descriptions of invertebrates from the Car- boniferous System. Шіпоіз Geol. Surv., vol. 5, pp. 323- 619. Meyer, D. L. 1983. Evolutionary implications of predation on Recent reef- dwelling crinoids. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. with Progr., vol. 15, p. 644. Meyer, D. L., and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among Recent and fossil crinoids, in Tevesz, М. J. 5., and McCall, Р. І. [eds.], Biotic interac- tions in Recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York, pp. 377-427. Meyer, D. L., and Macurda, D. B., Jr. 1977. Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology, vol. 3, pp. 74-82. 1980. Ecology and distribution of the shallow-water crinoids of Palau and Guam. Micronesica, vol. 16, pp. 59-99. Meyer, H. von 1858. Crinoideen aus dem Posidonomyen Schiefer Deutschlands. Neues Jahrb. Mineralogie, Geologie, Paläontologie, рр. 59-62. Miller, J. S. 1821. А natural history of the Crinoidea or lily-shaped animals, with observations on the genera Asteria, Euryale, Coma- tula, and Marsupites. Bristol, Bryan and Co., 150 pp. Miller, S. A. 1879. Remarks upon the Kaskaskia Group, and description of new species of fossils from Pulaski County, Kentucky. Cin- cinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 2, pp. 31-42. 1889. North American geology and paleontology. Cincinnati, Ohio, pp. 267, 268. 1891. Thestructure, classification, and arrangement of American Palaeozoic crinoids into families. Indiana Dept. Geol. Nat. Hist., 16th Ann. Rept. (for 1888, 1889), pp. 302-326. 1892. Paleontology. Indiana Dept. Geol. Nat. Hist., 17th Ann. Rept. (1891), pp. 611-705. Miller, S. A., and Gurley, W. F. E. 1890a. Description of some new genera and species of Echinoder- mata, from the Coal Measures and Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 13, pp. 3-25. 1890b. Description of some new genera and species of Echinoder- mata from the Coal Measures and Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. Indiana Dept. Geol. Nat. Hist., 16th Ann. Rept., pp. 327-373 (this article was re- published from the J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 13, with additional descriptions and plates). 1894. New genera and species of echinodermata. Illinois St. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull. 5, pp. 1—53. 1895. Description of new species of Paleozoic Echinodermata. Illinois St. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull. 6, 62 pp. 1896. Description of new and remarkable fossils from the Paleo- Zoic rocks of the Mississippi Valley. Illinois St. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull. 8, pp. 1—65. 1897. New species of crinoids, cephalopods, and other Paleozoic fossils. Illinois St. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull. 12, pp. 1-69. Montfort, P. D. de 1808. Conchyliologie systematique, et classification methodique des coquilles; offrant leurs figures, leur arrangement gene- rique, leurs descriptions caracteristiques, leurs noms; ainsi que leur synonymie en plusieurs langues. Paris, t. 1. 1810. Conchyliologie systematique, et classification methodique des coquilles; offrant leurs figures, leur arrangement gene- rique, leurs descriptions caracteristiques, leurs noms; ainsi que leur synonymie en plusieurs langues. Paris, t. 2. Moore, R. C., and Jeffords, J. M. 1968. Classification and nomenclature of fossil crinoids based on studies of dissociated parts of their columns. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Art. 9, ser. No. 46, 86 pp. Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., and Strimple, Н. L. 1978. Order Cladida Moore and Laudon, 1942, in Moore, R. C. [ed.], Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press. Pt. T, Echinodermata, vol. рр. 2575: 8579. Moore, К. C., and Laudon, І. В. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 46, 153 pp. 1944. Class Crinoidea, in Shimer, H. W., and Shrock, R. R., Index fossils of North America. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 137-209. Moore, R. C., and Plummer, F. B. 1938. Upper Carboniferous crinoids from the Morrow Subseries of Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Denison Univ. Bull., vol. 32, pp. 209-313. 1940. Crinoids from the Upper Carboniferous and Permian strata in Texas. Texas Univ., Bull. 3945, pp. 1-468. Moore, R. C., and Strimple, H. L. 1969. Explosive evolutionary differentiation of unique group of Mississippian-Pennsylvanian camerate crinoids (Acrocrin- idae). Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Paper 39, 44 pp. Morris, J. 1843. А catalogue of British fossils. 1st ed., John Van Voorst, London, 222 pp. Morris, J., and Roberts, G. E. 1862. Onthe Carboniferous limestone of Oreton and Farlow, Clee Hills, Shropshire. Geol. Soc. London, Q. J., vol. 18, pp. 94—102. Miller, К. W., Nogami, Y., and Lenz, Н. 1974. Phosphatische ringe als mikrofossilen im Altpalüozoikum. Palaontographica. Abt. A, Bd. 146, pp. 79—99. Münster, G. G. zu 1839. Beschreibung einiger neuer Crinoideen aus der Übergangs- formation. Beiträge zur Petrefaktenkunde, vol. 1, pp. 1- 124. Newberry, J. W., and Worthen, A. H. 1866. Descriptions of vertebrates. Geol. Surv. Illinois, Paleon- tology of Illinois, vol. 2, pp. 11-141. 1870. Descriptions of fossil vertebrates. Geol. Surv. Illinois, Pa- leontology of Illinois, vol. 4, sect. 1, pp. 343-374. North, F. J. 1920. On Syringothyris Winchell and certain Carboniferous Brachiopoda referred to Spiriferina d'Orbigny. Geol. Soc. London, Q. J., vol. 76, pp. 162-227. Norwood, J. G., and Pratten, H. 1855. Notice of the genus Chonetes as found in the western states and territories with descriptions of eleven new species. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, J., vol. 3, pp. 23-32. d'Orbigny, A. D. 1851. Cours elementaire de paleontologie et geologie stratigrap- hiques. Paris, Victor Masson, vol. 2, 847 pp. Owen, D. D. 1838. Report of a geological reconaissance of the State of Indiana made in the year 1837. Bolton and Livingston, Indianap- olis, 34 pp. Owen, D. D., and Shumard, B. E 1852a. Descriptions of seven new species of Crinoidea from the MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 19, Subcarboniferous limestone of Iowa and Illinois. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, J., ser. 2, vol. 2, pp. 89—94. 1852b. Description of one new genus and twenty-two new species of Crinoidea from the Subcarboniferous limestone, in Owen, D. D., Report of a geological Survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Lippincott, Grambo, Philadelphia, pp. 587—598. Owen, R. 1840. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth. London, 655 pp. Perrier, J. O. E. 1884. Memoire sur les etoiles de mer receuilles dans la Mer d'An- tilles et le Golf du Mexique. Mus. nat. d'Hist., Paris, N. A., ser. 2, vol. 6, pp. 127-276. Perry, T. G., and Horowitz, A. S. 1963. Bryozoans from the Glen Dean Limestone (middle Chester) of southern Indiana and Kentucky. Indiana Geol. Surv. Bull., 26 pp. Phillips, J. 1841. Figures and descriptions of the Palaeozoic fossils of Corn- wall, Devon, and West Somerset. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London, 232 pp. Pomel, N. А. 1869. Revue des echinodermes. Paris, 17 pp. Prout, H. A. 1860. Fourth series of descriptions of Bryozoa from the Paleozoic rocks of the western states and territories. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, pp. 571—581. Retzius, A. J. 1781. Crania oder Todtenkopfs- Muschel. Schrift, Berlin. Gesell. Naturforsch. Freunde, vol. 2, pp. 66-71. Rexroad, C. B., and Clarke, C. E. 1960. Conodonts from the Glen Dean Formation of Kentucky and equivalent formations of Virginia and West Virginia. J. Paleontol., vol. 35, pp. 1202-1206. Roemer, C. F. 1855. Erste Periode, Kohlen Gebirge, in Lethaea Geognostica. H. С. Bronn, vol. 1, p. 229. St. John, O., and Worthen, A. H. 1875. Description of fossil fishes. Geol Surv. Illinois, Paleontol- ору of Illinois, sect. 1, vol. 6, pp. 245-488. 1883. Descriptions of fossil invertebrates. Geol Surv. Illinois, Pa- leontology of Illinois, sect. 1, vol. 7, pp. 52-264. Say, T. 1820. Observations on some species of zoophytes and shells prin- cipally fossil. Ата. J. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 34-45. 1825. Ontwo genera and several species of Crinoidea. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, J., 1st ser., vol. 4, pp. 289-296. Schmidt, W. E. 1934. Die Crinoideen des rheinischen Devons, Teil 1, Die Cri- noideen des Hunsrückschiefers. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., Abh., n. s., No. 163, 149 pp. 1942. Die Crinoideen des rheinischen Devons, Teil 2, A. Nachtrag zu: Die Crinoideen des Hunsrückschiefers. B. Die Crino- ideen des Unterdevons bis zur Cultrijugatus- Zone (mit Aus- schluss des Hunsrückschiefers). Reichstelle Bodenforsch., Abh., n. s., vol. 182, 253 pp. Schuchert, C. 1914. Fossilium catalogus, 1; Animalia, pars 3, Stelleroidea Pa- laeozoica. W. Junk, Berlin, 53 pp. Short, M. R. 1978. [MS] Petrology of the Pennington and Lee Formations of northeastern Kentucky and the Sharon Conglomerate of southeastern Ohio. Cincinnati, Univ. Cincinnati, Ph. D. dissert., 219 pp. Shumard, B. F. 1853. Paleontology; description of the species of Carboniferous and Cretaceous fossils collected, in Marcy, В. B., Explo- ration of the Red River of Louisiana in the year 1852. U. S. 32nd Congress, 2nd session, Senate Ex. Doc. 54, pp. 197-211. 1854. Paleontology; description of the species of Carboniferous and Cretaceous fossils collected, Àn Marcy, R. B., Explo- ration of the Red River of Louisiana in the year 1852. U. 5. 33га Congress, 151 session, House Ex. Doc., pp. 173- 185. 1855. Description of new species of organic remains. Miss. Geol. Surv., vol. 2, pp. 185-208. 1857. Description of new fossil Crinoidea from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western and southern portions of the United States. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, pp. 71—80. Signor, P. W., and Brett, C. E. 1983. Impact of the mid-Paleozoic radiation of durophagous predators: Evidence from brachiopods, nautiloids, and cri- noids. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. with Programs, vol. 15, p. 688. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine rev- olution. Paleobiology, vol. 10, pp. 229—245. Simpson, G. B. 1895. А handbook of the genera of North American Paleozoic Bryozoa. New York Geol. Ann. Rept. 14, pp. 403-669. Sowerby, J. 1821. The mineral conchology of Great Britain; coloured figures and descriptions of those remains of testaceous animals or shells, which have been preserved at various times, and depths in the Earth. W. Arding Co., London, vol. part 46, рой: Speden, І. С. 1966. Paleoecology and the study of fossil benthonic assemblages and communities. New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys., vol. 9, pp. 408-423. Spencer, W. K. 1925-27. А monograph of the British Palaeozoic Asterozoa. Pa- laeontogr. Soc. (London), Part VI, vol. 76, pp. 237-324; vol. 79, pp. 325-388. 1930. British Palaeozoic Asterozoa. Palaeontogr. Soc. (London), pt. 8, vol. 82, pp. 389-436. Spencer, W. K., and Wright, C. W. 1966. Asterozoa, in Moore, К. C. [ed.], Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press, pt. U, Echinodermata 3, vol. 1, pp. U4-U107. Springer, F. 1913. Crinoidea, in Zittel, K. A. von, Textbook of paleontology. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London, pp. 173—243. 1920. The crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Inst. Publ. 2501, 486 pp. 1926. Unusual forms of fossil crinoids. U. S. Natl. Museum Proc., vol. 67, No. 9, pp. 1-137. Strimple, H. L. 1948. Notes on Phanocrinus from the Fayetteville Formation of northeastern Oklahoma. J. Paleontol., vol. 22, pp. 490- 493. 1951a. Notes on Phanocrinus cylindricus and description of new species of Chester crinoids. Washington Acad. Sci., J., vol. 41, pp. 291—294. 1951b. Some new species of Carboniferous crinoids. Bull. Am. Paleontol., vol. 33, No. 137, 40 pp. 1955. A new species of Cymbiocrinus from the Pitkin. Washing- ton Acad. Sci., J., vol. 45, 14 pp. 1961. Late Desmoinesian crinoid faunule from Oklahoma. Okla- homa Geol. Surv., Bull. 93, 189 pp. 1963. Dasciocrinus in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geol. Notes, vol. 23, pp. 101-107. 1967. Aphelecrinidae, a new family of inadunate crinoids. Okla- homa Geol. Notes, vol. 27, pp. 81-85. 1970. The occurrence of Onychaster strimplei in Oklahoma. Okla. Geol. Notes, vol. 30, No. 2, 42 pp. 1973a. Notes on Mississippian Ampelocrinidae, in Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. [eds.], Fossil crinoid studies [part 5]. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Paper 66, pp. 21-24. 1973b. Aenigmocrinus, a new Chesterian inadunate crinoid genus, in Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. [eds.], Fossil crinoid studies [part 3]. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Paper 66, pp. 15-18. 1975a. Middle Pennsylvanian (Atokan) crinoids from Oklahoma and Missouri. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Paper 76, 30 pp. 1975b. New Chesterian crinoids from Illinois. Univ. Kansas Pa- leontol. Contrib., Paper 79, pp. 1-9. Strimple, H. L., Frest, T. J., and Miller, J. F. 1977. The genus Anartiocrinus. Southeastern Geology, vol. 19, pp. 29-37. Strimple, Н. L., and Horowitz, A. S. 1971. A new Mississippian ampelocrinid. Univ. Kansas Paleont. Contrib., Paper 56, pt. 5, рр. 23-27а. 1975. A crinoid lentil in the Pennington Formation, Sloans Val- ley, Kentucky. Southeastern Geology, vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 81-83. Strimple, H. L., and McGinnis, M. R. 1969. А new platycrinitid from Gilmore City, Towa. Тома Acad. Sci., Proc., vol. 76, pp. 263-266. Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. 1971. Crinoids ofthe Lasalle Limestone of Illinois. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., art. 55, Echinodermata, vol. 11, pp. 1-48. 1973a. Tegmen of Camptocrinus, in Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. [eds.], Fossil crinoid studies [part 8]. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Paper 66, pp. 33-38. 1973b. Notes on the inadunate crinoid genus Phanocrinus, in Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. [eds.], Fossil crinoid studies [part 1]. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., Paper 66, pp. 2-7. Strimple, H. L., and Watkins, W. T. 1969. Carboniferous crinoids of Texas with stratigraphic impli- cations. Palaeontogr. Am., vol. 6, No. 40, pp. 141-275. Stuckenberg, A. 1895. Korallen und Bryozoen der Steinkohlen Ablagerungen des Ural und des Timan. Mem. Com. Geol. St. Petersbourg, n. зег., vol. 10, pt. 3, 244 pp. Sutton, A. H. 1934. Evolution of Pterotocrinus in the Eastern Interior Basin during the Chester epoch. J. Paleontol., vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 393-416. Sutton, A. H., and Hagan, W. E. 1939. Inadunate crinoids of the Mississippian: Zeacrinus. J. Pa- leontol., vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 82-96. Sutton, A. H., and Wagner, D. E. 1931. New species of Chester fossils. J. Paleontol., vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 23-33. Sutton, A. H., and Winkler, V. D. 1940. Mississippian Inadunata; Eupachycrinus and related forms. J. Paleontol., vol. 14, pp. 544—567. Troost, G. 1835. Onthe Pentremites reinwardtii, a new fossil, with remarks on the genus Pentremites (Say). Geol. Soc. Pennsylvania, Trans., vol. 1, pp. 224-231. BULLETIN 330 1849. [untitled]. Am. J. Sci. Arts, ser. 2, vol. 8, No. 24, pp. 419, 420. 1850. А list of the fossil crinoids of Tennessee. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc. for 1849, pp. 59-64. 1858. in Hall, J., Palaeontology of Iowa. Iowa Geol. Surv., vol. 1, pp. 543, 562. Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe des Crinoides, in Piveteau, J. [ed.], Traite de pa- leontologie. Masson et Cie., Paris, vol. 3, pp. 658-773. 1978. Camerata, in Moore, R. C. [ed.], Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. and Kansas Univ. Press, pt. Т, Echinodermata 2, vol. 2. pp. T408-T519. Ulrich, E. O. 1882. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 5, pp. 121-175, 232-257. 1883. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 6, pp. 82-92, 148-168, 245-279. 1890. Paleozoic Bryozoa. Illinois Geol. Surv., Paleontology of Illinois, sect. 6, pp. 283-688. 1905. Geology and general relations, in Ulrich, E. O., and Smith, W. 5. Т. [eds.], The lead, zinc, and fluorspar deposits of Kentucky. U. S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 36, pt. 1, pp. 7- 104. 1918. The formations of the Chester Series in western Kentucky and their correlates elsewhere, in Butts, C., Mississippian formations of western Kentucky. Kentucky Geol. Surv., ser. 4, Geol. Reports, pp. 1-236. Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1879. Transition forms in crinoids, and description of five new species. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc. (1878), pp. 224-266. 1880. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila- delphia, Proc. (1879), pp. 226-378. 1881. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, pt. 2. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc., pp. 177-414. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, pt. 3, sec. 1. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc., pp. 225-364. 1886. Revision of the Paleocrinoidea, pt. 3, sec. 2. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Proc., pp. 64-226; authors' separate, pp. 139-302; index to pts. 1-3, pp. 303-334. 1897. The North American crinoidea Camerata. Harvard College Museum Comp. Zool., Mem. 20-21, pp. 1-897. Walker, K. R. 1972. Trophic analysis: A method for studying the function of ancient communities. J. Paleontol., vol. 46, pp. 82—93. Waters, J. A. Horowitz, A. S., and Macurda, D. B. 1985. Ontogeny and phylogeny of the Carboniferous blastoid Pentremites. J. Paleontol., vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 701-712. Welch, J. R. 1976. Phosphannulus on Paleozoic crinoid stems. J. Paleontol., vol. 50, pp. 218-225. 1978. Flume study of simulated feeding and hydrodynamics of a Paleozoic stalked crinoid. Paleobiology, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 89—95. Weller, S. 1920. The geology of Hardin County. Illinois Geol. Surv., Bull. 41, pp. 313-377. Wetherby, A. G. 1879a. Remarks on the genus Pterocrinus. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 2, pp. 3-8. 1879b. Descriptions of new species of crinoids from the Kaskaskia group of the Subcarboniferous. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 2, pp. 134-140. 1880. Remarks on the Trenton Limestone of Kentucky, with de- scriptions of new fossils from the formation and the Kas- MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 79 kaskia Group, Subcarboniferous. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 3, pp. 144-160. 1881. Descriptions of crinoids from the upper Subcarboniferous of Pulaski County, Kentucky. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., J., vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 324-330. Whidborne, G. F. 1896. A preliminary synopsis of the fauna of the Pickwell Down, Baggy and Pilton Beds. Geologists Assn., Proc., vol. 14, pp. 371-377. Whitfield, R. P. 1891. Contributions to invertebrate paleontology. New Y ork Acad. Sci., Ann., vol. 5, pp. 505-622. Wilson, R. B. 1959. Wilkingia, gen. nov. to replace Allorisma for a genus of upper Paleozoic lamellibranchs. Palaeontology, vol. 1, pp. 401-404. Wood, E. 1909. A critical summary of Troost's unpublished manuscript on the crinoids of Tennessee. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Bull. 64, 150 pp. Worthen, A. H. 1860. Notice of a new species of a Platycrinus and other fossils from the Mountain Limestone of Illinois and Iowa; being an extract from the Second Annual Report of the Illinois Geological Survey. Acad. Sci., St. Louis, Trans., vol. 1, pp. 569-571. 1873. Descriptions of invertebrates from Carboniferous System, in Meek, Е. B., and Worthen, А. H., Paleontology. Шіпоіз Geol. Surv., vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 323-619. 1875. Description of invertebrates. Illinois Geol. Surv., Paleon- tology of Illinois, sect. 2, vol. 6, 516 pp. 1882. Descriptions of fifty-four new species of crinoids from the lower Carboniferous limestones and coal measures of Il- linois and Iowa. Illinois St. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull. 1, Art. 1, pp. 3-38. 1883. Descriptions of fossil invertebrates. Illinois Geol. Surv., vol. 7, pp. 269-322. Worthen, A. H., and Miller, S. A. 1883. Descriptions of new Carboniferous echinoderms. Illinois Geol. Surv., vol. 7, pp. 327-338. Wright, J. 1926. Notes on the anal plates of Eupachycrinus calyx and Zea- crinus konincki. Geol. Mag., vol. 63, No. 742, pp. 145- 164. 1952. A monograph of the British Carboniferous Crinoidea. Pa- laeontogr. Soc. (London), vol. 1, pt. 4, pp. 103-148. 1954. A monograph of the British Carboniferous Crinoidea. Pa- laeontogr. Soc. (London), vol. 1, pt. 5, pp. 149-190. Yandell, L. P. 1855. Description of a new genus of crinoidea. Am. J. Sci., vol. 20, pp. 135-137. Yandell, L. P., and Shumard, B. F. 1847. Contributions to the geology of Kentucky. Prentice and Weissinger, Louisville, pp. 1-36. 1855. Description of a new genus of Crinoidea. Am. J. Sci. and Arts, ser. 2, vol. 20, pp. 135-137. Young, J. 1883. On Ure’s "Millepore", Tabulipora (Cellepora) urii, Flem. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 12, pp. 154-158. Zittel, K. A. von 1879. Handbuch der Palaeontologie, bd. 1, Palaeozoologie. R. Oldenbourg, Miinchen und Leipzig, abt. 1, 765 pp. 1895. Gründzuge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie). \st ed., R. Oldenbourg, Miinchen, 171 pp. 80 Figure 1-4. 10-15. BULLETIN 330 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 1 reana рү CS ceterae dices сийем ч бы an doeet De ee Mc e Бы Ыы enmt Айс ан Dt Pin s rec cn 30 1. Figured specimen, UK 115612, loc. 3. Posterior view, х 1.4. 2. Figured specimen, UK 115603, loc. 3. Left posterior view, Х1.1. 3. Figured specimen, UK 115614, loc. 3. Anal sac and arms, anterior view, x1.3. 4. Figured specimen, USNM S-2690, loc. 1. E and A rays. Note tegminal plates between rays and primaxil in the A ray; B ray has two primibrachials, x 0.9. Пра ОДИ БАНАНА Жї did SDLIDnBer) ИИИ у. tros rcr eto а 34 5, 6. Topotype, UK 115625, loc, 3. 5. D, E, and A rays, x1.3. 6. B and C rays, x1.3. PUTO GON ITE STO SITES IO UD or E УУ лу гулу PERPE RERO ЖҮЛ TEE ECCE Is 34 7, 8. Figured specimen, UK 115641, loc. 5. 7. Posterior view, x2.8. 8. Anterior view, x2.8. 9. Topotype, USNM 401444, loc. 1. Spinose anal disc, superior view, x3. ТОИ ОТУТ ОУ ШОШО е Mee E OE ОЕ an me e e VEE EET уку аа nine eS а TOO 35 10. Figured specimen, UK 115701, loc. 3. E and A rays, x2.3. 11, 12; 15. Holotype, ОК 1155758; loc. 5: 11. E, A, and B rays, x2.2. 12. Posterior view, x2.2. 15. Dorsal cup, posterior up, x3.2. 13. Topotype, UK 115571, loc. 5. Posterior view, showing bulbous anal sac between arms, x2.5. 14. Topotype, UK 115588, loc. 5. E and A rays; immersed in water, x1.3. РГАТЕ 1 BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 РГАТЕ 2 BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 Figure 1-4. 5-8. 11-15. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 81 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 2 IDasciocrinussHoriatis Хайде С Shunan е. 21: И EE анун) атава аа n 36 1. Figured specimen, UK 115657, loc. 3. Anterior view, x2. 2-4. Figured specimen, UK 115663, loc. 3. 2. Posterior view, Х2.5. 3. Anterior view, x2.5. 4. Dorsal cup, posterior up, х2. Cymbiocitnus;grandisRaske са s e oo о Е a 37 5, 6. Figured specimen, UK 115670, loc. 5. 5. Anterior view, x1.4. 6. D and E rays, x2.4. 7. Topotype, UK 115676, loc. 3. Dorsal cup, posterior up, x2.4. 8. Figured specimen, UK 115671, loc. 5. Anterior view. Note small cirri and Archimedes colony; immersed in water, x 1.5. | rinus l (Wetherby) voe e a Cy а Марата Ын ал айы йж аа аа нава а аа a ое ЕК E A ae 87 Figured specimen, UK 115681, loc. 3. 9. Posterior view, х2.7. 10. Anterior view, E, A, and B rays, х2.6. Phacelocrinuslongidactylas; (MeChesney): 1... аа ана. І А ВР А sm m о, 38 11. Figured specimen, ОК 115803, loc. 5. Posterior view, x1.1. 12. Figured specimen, UK 115811, loc. 3. Note typical anal plate arrangement, x1.3. 13. Figured specimen, UK 115808, loc. 3. Note atypical anal plate arrangement, х 2.2. 14. Figured specimen, USNM S-2770, loc. 1. Posterior view of very large specimen, x0.44. 15. Figured specimen, UK 115815, loc. 5. C ray; pentagonal stem grades to round stem, x1.3. 82 Figure 1-5. 8—10. 11-13. BULLETIN 330 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 3 Pilaskrerimnus campanulusi(Horowitz) new combination cette... Лаки SUDO RUDI OBERE MS 40 1, 4, 5. Figured specimen, UK 115835, loc. 3. 1. D and E rays, x1.2. 4. Dorsal cup, anterior view, х2.І. 5. A, B, and C rays, x1.2. 2. Figured specimen, UK 115837, loc. 3. Dorsal cup, anterior view; note many tiny tegminal ossicles between primibrachials, x 1.6. 3. Figured specimen, UK 115834, loc. 3. Dorsal cup, posterior view, x1.4. . Wetherbyocrinus pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley, 1896), new combination ............................................. 42 Holotype, UC 6488, loc. 1. 6. Posterior view, x2.1. 7. Anterior view, х2.1. GUImrcrinus vagutnsqMallemaud:Gusley) сала cv пој л кыш... Xe ка “шы о к SRM 42 8, 10. Topotype, USNM S-2638, loc. 1. 8. Posterior view, immersed in water, x0.8. 10. Anterior view, immersed in water, x0.7. 9. Holotype, UC 6418, loc. 1. Anterior view, x1.4. ОЛЧОП НЕ SDIBOSUSSSONIQR ОУ .......5.-.;...- RETE DS Я LUE c аа нева fette rns 44 11. Holotype, USNM 4409-A, loc. 1. Posterior view, immersed in water, х0.6. 12. Paratype, USNM 4409-B, loc. 1. Posterior view, immersed in water, x1. 13. Paratype, USNM 4409-C, loc. 1. Anterior view, immersed in water, x0.9. РГАТЕ 3 -BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 А ж сљавњенљњео»: + r ; ТР ES р 0503406464 гетото етее 5 аге СНА е h н t MAPPA FPE aem s GI T " Stat Р ~ * 5 A У ee +'. L4 РГАТЕ 4 Чы, Кышы run, 7 За ча idu Tr ls з ds p oe Я гэн рна A gna y ammo orn at «= Doe 2: #4 2 BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 Figure 1-4. SEE 1E M5 7-9, 11. 16-19. 20-23. MissISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 83 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 4 Compelocrinusskuskaskiensis OWO nienia S... аа E о e edes ew NEEDED E 44 1, 3, 4. Figured specimen, UK 115699, loc. 3. 1. Anterior view, х 1.4. 3. Anterior view, x2.5. 4. Posterior view, x2.5. 2. Figured specimen, USNM S-4402-A, loc. 1. Anterior (?) view, immersed in water, x0.7. Aphelecrinus randolpltensisCW/otühen)e н ааа 43 5. Figured specimen, UK 115826, loc. 3. B, C, and D rays; note recurved anal sac, x1.3. 6. Figured specimen, UK 115827, loc. 3. Posterior view, x1.2. 12, 13. Figured specimen, UK 115581, loc. 12. A, B, C rays, x2.0. 13. D and E rays, x2.0. CPOO OOA UUR ОЛДЫ АЕ Ced CT MESS co ш... аа сааны 45 7, 8. Figured specimen, UK 115843, loc. 5. 7. D and E rays, x 1.1. 8. A, B, and C rays, x1.0. 9, 11. Figured specimen, UK 115844, loc. 9. Anterior view, x1.3. 11. Posterior view of dorsal cup, x2.7. сл = Anaona А SING IILETEST SA ЦНС)... ee TEM Flore аа src cr а, 46 Unnumbered specimen, Ettensohn Collection. Note bend in hypertrophied arm to the Іей. Immersed in water. Haney Mbr., Newman Limestone, Carter Co., northeastern Kentucky. Approximately x1.0. ‚ ApassizockinusichtA dactyliformissbunmard- d о аа ана. на ле ои uere RO ee 46 Figured specimen, UK 115568, loc. 3. 14. Lateral view of infrabasal cone, x3. 15. Ventral view, x2.7. Agassizocrinusiconieus Owensandeshumazd el. Ба хаза RR ООШ TUE 1: а, 46 16. Figured specimen, UK 115850, loc. 3. Anterior view of dorsal cup, х2.2. 17. Figured specimen, UK 115847, loc. 3. Posterior view of dorsal cup minus infrabasal cone, x2.3. 18, 19. Figured specimen, UK 115853, loc. 5. 18. Lateral view of infrabasal cone, x 2.0. 19. Ventral view, x2.2. IRIEL OCHIAUSINILICFEANY GUNCHON) у. over о rece re eS аа аа E CE Ea ea 47 20. Topotype, UK 115685, loc. 3. Posterior view of highly ornamented cup, x 2.6. 21. Topotype, UK 115687, loc. 3. Posterior view of typical cup, x2.7. 22, 23. Topotype, UK 115690, loc. 3. 22. Posterior view, х 2.4. 23. Anterior view, Х2.3. 84 BULLETIN 330 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 5 Figure Јаве РИШ ОЛИ SHON OVINTS: Саа е ашак ага) а D d ежик а ТАТ ОООО 1. Figured specimen, UK 115753, loc. 3. Anterior view, with portion of round stem, x1.2. 2. Figured specimen, UK 115750, loc. 3. Posterior view of adult specimen with 10 arms, x1.7. 3, 4. Figured specimen, UK 115786, loc. 3. 3. Posterior view of juvenile specimen with nine arms, x2.9. 4. Anterior view, E, А, and B rays, x3.3. 5, 6. Figured specimen, UK 115749, loc. 3. 5. Posterior view of juvenile specimen with 10 arms, x3.1. 6. Anterior view, x3.1. 7, 8. Figured specimen, UK 115741, loc. 3. 7. Dorsal cup, posterior up, adult specimen, x2.6. 8. Posterior view of dorsal cup; note plicate anal sac, x 2.6. 9-11. Phanocrinus parvaramus Sutton and Winkler 9, 10. Topotype, UK 115796, loc. 2. 9. Dorsal cup, posterior up, x1.8. 10. Anterior view, х2.4. 11. Topotype, UK 115794, loc. 2. Oblique view of dorsal cup, D and E rays, x2.2. 12, 13. Pentaramicrinus gracilis (Wetherby) 12. 13. Vepotype, UK 115797; loc. 1. 12. D and E rays, х2.1. 13. A, B, and C rays, x2.1. 14-17. Eupachycrinus boydii Meek and Worthen 14. Figured specimen, UK 115800, loc. 5. Posterior view, x1.1. 15, 16. Figured specimen, UK 115802, loc. 3. 15. Posterior view, x0.8. 16. Anterior view, x0.9. 17. Figured specimen, UK 115801, loc. 3. Basal view of dorsal cup, x2. PLATE 5 ‘BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 OZ МАМА) РА, BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 PLATE 6 | MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 85 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 6 Figure Page l-4. Onychocrinusypulaskiensis Millen and смеў жань... Крас аба SERE ubl. VOCE. EE DU аа аи аи ie us rena s m 51 1;2- Тторојгуве UK 115861, locks: 1. Anterior view of large specimen, x0.8. 2. Posterior view, x0.8. 3. Topotype, UK 115857, loc. 3. Posterior view; note anal tube and stem, x1. 4. Topotype, UK 115860, loc. 3. Note spines on upper arm axillaries, x 1.4. S-OBHTOXOCEHIUSBVAUTICIT (аш): аа. ees or ORDRE EL ж. uer са О у ы еа 52 5, 6. Figured specimen, UK 115881, loc. 5. 5. Dorsal view of crown, posterior up; note anal tube, x1.3. 6. Posterior view, х 1.4. 7. Figured specimen, UK 115885, loc. 3. Posterior view with stem, x1.3. 8. Figured specimen, UK 115577, loc. 5. Oral view, posterior up; note oral plates, x 1.9. 9-14; PierotoCVunussucutusoWellenbyee o лаша ку едка а аа аа ара eo tUe uM WEE БЫ a 54 9. Topotype, UK 115897, loc. 3. B and C rays, x1.4. 10. Topotype, UK 115889, loc. 3. Dorsal view, posterior up; note spinose cup brachials at lower right, x 1.4. 11. Figured specimen, UK 115898, loc. 4. Note spinose cup brachials, fragments of platycerid gastropod at top, and long pointed wing plates, Х1.4. 12. Topotype, UK 115901, loc. 3. Posterior view; note platycerid gastropod and short, stubby wing plates, x1.7. 13. Figured specimen, UK 115921, loc. 5. Dorsal view, posterior up, tiny specimen, x3.3. 14. Figured specimen, UK 115904, loc. 6. Dorsal view, posterior up, Х1.3. 86 BULLETIN 330 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 7 Figure IS ае OL CH IIMS: СВ МУСУ E d се NU NE LIA e а аа а RNC AER ORO eR eS 54 1-3. Figured specimen, UK 115573, loc. 5. 1. Dorsal view; note spoon-shaped wing plates, x1. 2. Lateral view; note flexure of arms at wing plate level, x1. 3. Ventral view, x1. 4. Figured specimen, UK 115908, loc. 5. Lateral view, x1.2. 5, 8. Figured specimen, UK 115905, loc. 5. 5. Dorsal view, posterior up, x1.3. 8. Ventral view, posterior up, x1.8. 6, 7. Topotype, USNM S-1557, loc. 1. 6. Dorsal view, posterior up, x0.9. 7. Lateral view, D and E rays, х1.1. 9-17, 24. Topotypes, UK 115922 (group number), wing plates. 9. Lateral view, x1.3. 10. Lateral view, x1.2. 11. Lateral view, x1.2. 12. Lateral view, х 1.2. 13. Lateral view, x1.2. 14. Lateral view, x1.2. 15. Lateral view; note inarticulate brachiopod, х 1.3. 16. Lateral view, x1.3. 17. Dorsal view, x2.1. 24. Lateral view, x1.3. 18, 19, 21-23. Topotypes, UK 115921 (group number), wing plates. 18. Ventral view, x1.1. 19. Ventral view, х0.9. 21. Dorsal view, x1.1. 22. Dorsal view, 1.0. 23. Ventral view, x 1.2. 20. Figured specimen, UK 115893: wing plate, lateral view, х 1.3. РІАТЕ 8 BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 87 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 8 Figure Page 1-12: Prterotoortnusudepressussyonsandisasseday mec а Nc А А dud WE IU MERE Lu il. 55 1. Figured specimen, UK 115909, loc. 3. Crushed specimen with portion of round stem, х 1.5. 2. Figured specimen, UK 115911, loc. 5. Lateral view of tiny specimen, E and A rays, x2.9. 3, 5, 6. Figured specimen, UK 115915, loc. 5. 3. Dorsal view of calyx, x2.6. 5. Ventral view; note lanceolate wing plate scars, x1.2. 6. Lateral view; note wing plate scars on left and right, x2. 4. Figured specimen, UK 115913, loc. 5. Lateral view, D, E, and A rays, x2.6. 7-12. Figured specimens, UK 115925 (group number), wing plates. 7. Lateral view, Х1.2. 8. Lateral view, Xx1.2. 9. Lateral view, Х1.2. 10. Lateral view, x1.3. 11. Lateral view, x1.2. 12. Lateral view, x1.3. 13, 14: Hyrtanecrinus.pentialobus:(Casseday and Lyon): а e ree x dep: а ара ООО eee 56 13. Topotype, UK 115963, loc. 3. Lateral view; note remains of pendant arm and columnal platform and stem, x3.3. 14. Figured specimen, UK 115575, loc. 5. Note brachials, tegmen, and portion of stem, x2.5. 15. Strimplecrinusssiperstes:(Wachsmuth- ands Springer) e пе. LL eee eese nep Meses алија JO аа аи. qe aea 56 Holotype, USNM S-4159, loc. 1. D, E, and A rays, x1.8. 16-19. Camptooninuscifepawacusmiulrand SPINES) o ан Rer seme ee ss ee tne nn ee E уо а 57 16, 17. Holotype, USNM S-1516-A, loc. 1. 16. Immersed in water, х 1.4. 17. View of bilaterally symmetrical stem, x 1.4. 18. Paratype, USNM S-1516-B, loc. 1. Immersed in water, x1.3. 19. Topotype, USNM 5-1516, loc. 1. Immersed in water, x1.5. 88 BULLETIN 330 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 9 Figure Page ITE ec va uat RE n immota ОШ SUC US атое анне... ee S a 57 1, 2, 4. Figured specimen, UK 115941, loc. 5. 1. Lateral view; note plates in dorsal cup and erect arms, x0.7. 2. Lateral view; note regularity in pinnulation, x0.7. 4. Close-up of dorsal cup, x1.3. 3. Figured specimen, UK 115943, loc. 3. Unique stem, easily identified as Acrocrinus, dorsal cup plates can be seen on left stem, x1.3, 5, 6. Figured specimen, UK 115569, loc. 3. 5. Oblique view of small specimen, E, А, and B rays, x 2.5. 6. Tegminal view, posterior up, х2.5. 7. Figured specimen, UK 115939, loc. 5. Tegminal view of large specimen, posterior up, x 1.3. Eoo. Ia ИО ОТИ ОЧЕН M MCI Еа 58 8. Figured specimen, UK 115566, loc. 5. Note brachioles and knobby base, x1.3. 9. Figured specimen, UK 116022, loc. 3. Note brachioles and smooth base, x1.3. 10-13. Pentremites elegans Lyon 10, 11. Figured specimen, UK 116026, loc. 3. 10. x1.4. 11. Note brachioles, x4. 12. Figured specimen, USNM S-5307, loc. 1. Note stem and cirri at bottom, (?), x1.9. 13. Figured specimen, UK 116032, loc. 6. Note oral cover plates, x4.9. Dd 5. PeHHEDIIESEDÜPHSIHSMALYOM. e ке Ne НН. cogo уу ука son sp SEDE S ce 59 14. Figured specimen, UK 116048, loc. 2. Small specimen, х1. 15. Figured specimen, UK 116038, loc. 5. Large specimen, х1.1. I, L7. Pentremites РУТ ОРИ Вау С ар b uo oL. vols E C ees 60 16. Figured specimen, UK 116061, loc. 6, x1.1. 17. Figured specimen, UK 116065, loc. 3, x1. BULLETINS OF АМЕВІСАМ PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 PLATE 9 BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 PLATE 10 MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 89 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 10 Figure Page кез КЕЙИН СИТНИ US ASS one Nr re xc M EP Ua IM E а 60 1,7. Figured specimen, UK 115580, loc. 5. 1. Ventral view, posterior down, immersed in xylol, x1.5. 7. Close-up of ventral surface, immersed in water, x2.9. 2, 4, 5. Figured specimen, UK 115582, loc. 5. 2. Dorsal view, immersed in xylol, x 1.6. 4. Close-up of ventral surface, coated, х 3.2. 5. Close-up of ventral surface, immersed in water, x3.2. 3. Figured specimen, UK 116001, loc. 3. Dorsal view, compressed peduncle, x1.3. 6. Figured specimen, UK 116015, loc. 5. Laterally compressed specimen with extended peduncle, x 1.2. 8. Figured specimen, UK 116016, loc. 5. Interior view of oral disc, posterior at bottom, x 1.7. 9. Figured specimen, UK 116005, loc. 3. Compressed peduncle, x2.4. 10, 11: Ulrichidiscus Ри Тент Ile ane аа еў) Е a IR ана Haus ыа 61 10. Topotype, USNM S-3193-A, loc. 1, х2.5. 11. Topotype, USNM S-3193-B, loc. 1. Note that specimen is attached to large solitary coral, x 1.6. BULLETIN 330 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 11 Figure Page ВИА НАМ А АДИО АЕН e te tens ssec Яра ue ы шу cama UEM ' 62 1. Topotype, USNM S-3858(8020), loc. 1. Lateral view, oral pole at bottom, x2.1. 2, 3. Topotype, UK 115988, loc. 3. 2. Feth, 1.7. 3. Aboral plates, x4. EAE T O EE viet азна, л н cas. tros veu EA E S e EE ди 62 Holotype, USNM 372191, loc. 1. Polar view of crushed specimen; pitted plates are not ambulacral plates but are interambulacrals; ambulacral areas are located at the corners of the roughly pentagonal outline, x 2.6. s LOCO CLACHISERCIBISDULITENG MC WESDCCICSHETEE e o e Л А а, ана, Ра nerd Е 63 5, 6. Topotype, UK 115990, loc. 3. 5. Lateral view, oral pole at bottom, small specimen; note extra row of plates in aboral interambulacra, x 3.0. 6. Aboral view; note absence of primary tubercles, x3.0. 7, 8. Holotype, UK 115989, loc. 3. 7. Aboral view of large specimen; note extra interambulacral plates and absence of primary tubercles, x 1.4. 8. Oral view; note presence of primary tubercles and primary spines, x 1.4. 9. Figured specimen, UK 115995, loc. 5. Lateral view, oral pole at bottom; note teeth at bottom, x1.2. BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY, VOLUME 95 PLATE 12 MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 91 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 12 Figure Page 1:250 0nychaster StUumpienBjosic СО Бетер ше Кер К e rc c RC TNR ОКИ 65 Figured specimen, UK 115998, loc. 3. 1. Ophiuroid can be seen between the rays of Pulaskicrinus campanulus (Horowitz), n. comb., x1.3. 2. Close-up with dorsal cup and some arms of crinoid removed; note the tiny thick hexagonal plates covering the ophiuroid, and the rugose to spinose nature of the crinoid's anal sac, x1.8. S (еп ША јео о котао ие ао аресте е Жу Ne ME. d c mM а n p m 65 Figured specimen, UK 115583, loc. 3. Oral view, immersed in water, x 2.3. ETHIC Ul PICOUN CCE ENS PONES eee ru eue ues dI ERR o XN E e eee ee or ECCE S 66 4-6. Holotype, UK 115999, loc. 3. 4. Lateral view; note enrolled arm at lower middle, х 2.5. 5. Dorsal view of main body disc; note stellate plates and central spine scars, х 3.0. 6. Lateral view; note small stubby spines on arms and spine scars on other plates, х 2.4. 7. Topotype, USNM 441445, loc. 1. Lateral view of flattened specimen, body disc at top; note abundance of fenestellid fronds, SIE S/O sunidentitiablerasterozoam ремија но SPECIES ve M E RAN TIL NN EE INC I 68 Figured specimen, USNM S-4402-B, loc. 1. 8. Oral view(?), on slab with Camptocrinus and Ampelocrinus, immersed in water, x 1.4. 9. Same view, immersed in water, х3.1. 92 BULLETIN 330 INDEX Note: Page numbers are in light face; plate numbers are in bold face; principal discussion pages are in italics. Аси ОШО GEV AIS ЗА Ане. сем са. ERRORI TES 26 Acondylacanthus St. John and Worthen, 1875 ...................... 18 ACTOG BGS АННЕ Ее TEE 16,22,57,70 атар Yandell, 1855 И 9x 20,57,58,88 Вас Halle US SEO НАЕ ана, SR 58 Actinocrinus ти татозих Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 .... 65 acuminatus, Фей ех ака RUE LUE, ае, 31-33 ОИ СНИМИ CR c аа эсс нары а аа си үзе 30 acutus, SPICTOVOCTINUS сылу... б. 16,20,22,24,25,27, 54,55,70,71,85,86 ACUIUS оопа ACUTUS, PICTOLOCTINIUS 1. 54 acutus torma DIUTCATUS, Pterotocrinus: .......... do е. 22,54 аси forma SPDALUIGIHSSPIOFOLOCTIRMS. осе ue cerra n eere ro ree 54 AMCTHECTIOCTINUS эа е 19730 ...— m reich 16,37, anomalos (Wetherby, 1880) ................... p^. UAM 20,37,38,81 Aesiocrinus Miller and Gurley, 18908 Ае о я 27 У А (L943)-. ЧИНА vce cae ВИ о К оло НИ 18 GLASS Zi, ATCNGCOCIAATIS: m E кайс ај 64 Agassizocrinus Owen and Shumard, 1852a ...... 9:16,17,20,21,24, 28,46,69—71 conicus Owen and Shumard, 1852a ............ 45.252 20,25,28, 46,47,83 СВ conicus Owen, and зоа е. 46 dactyliformis Shumard, 1853 46,47 cf. A. dactyliformis Shumard, 1853 ..... 4 oue... 20,25,46,47,83 (ТОЛ СОЮЛУ NOOSE О И о 46 gracilis Troost, 1849 gracilis Troost, 1850 laevis (Roemer, 1855) lobatus Springer, 1926 Agassizodus St. John and Worthen, 1875 Agelacrinites squamosus Meek and Worthen, 1868 ............... 60 Agelacrinus pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1894 ................. 61 Agenaracrinus parvabasalis Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ........... 49 АВЕ ПОО cL s M NEM HM Аа 21 Boria eal. .. pec нк а MEN AT CERA IE ET. 215957 Ааа: SLUMS VALLE а terme эши EN EM DECEM NUN URDU 38 alabamensis, Camptocrinus ..... eal 57 ?Camptocrinus .... Л ES m ios Эй, Alexander (7964... лана рана у аа акан а 2il alexander, Phanocrinuss Edu аса аа ыа E a 49 стана та ArchaeoctQutS ус Кы EIE ay ЕМ 64 americana, СаШаз ОИ Жыл лл кзз еу ыа 67,68 americanus, Calia Aea ан ране ое ерке е оо 68 Ampelocrimis Kirk, ВАР 5,16,36,44,45 bernhardinae Kirk, AOA Ва eee аа 44,45,68 Jonbriatus БКО AU аа улеа 44,45 kaskaskiensis (Worthen, 1882) ....... АЛО 17,20,44,45,83 mundus Kirk, 1942 бара жык ee I A 45 inosus Strkarple, DUST LAC EA SN RITE 45 amphora, AMDNOTACHOGIINUS os sette аа RETI OD 58 Amphoracrocrinus amphora (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) 58 Anartiocrinus cf. A. maxvillensis (Whitfield) ............. А. 83 Anavmocrinmus Kirk, 1394009 И 16,45 [pom Kick, 1940325 ака deor эу 20,28,29,45,46,83 maxvillensis (ЎЎ TBII) ue н 46 ОРЕВ) ааа НИ: oll GQHglaris;sDentremites А 58 Апора Ulrich; 1883... 2 о ы-и... 19 anomalos, CHIL SINOCTINUS. eee reser RETO Cymbiocrinus Poteriocrinus ... QUA 200) ТОЙ аса ванае К ИУ у нл иза аа PATIL INACOSDINIIEI Lane; тоо. cf. A. leidyi (Norwood and Ргайеп, 1855) Aphelecerimus Kirk ПОДА ари eS EORR bayensis (Meek and Worthen, 1865) .................. elegans Kirk, 1944a limatus Kirk, 1944a mundus Kirk, 1944a oweni Kirk, 1944а .................... randolphensis (Worthen, 1873) ?Aphelecrinus bayensis (Meek and Worthen) ........................ 43 Appalachian Basi ера NL NU arboreus, Linocrinust e Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844a agassizi Hall, 1858 düguantula.Kier, Uo Sarwan ое a ы lam. (Miller, LSe ue рл ош сс и mee hemispinifera, n. sp. ....... па Kier, LOS Set sc А ыз аа ые lagrandensis Miller and Gurley, 18905 ............................ 64 rossica (Buch, 1842) ка sie S UE аа 64 пцы іерар, Пе 64 ПОЛНЕ Най: КЕ суз у certian аа И 64 Archimedes Owen, 1838 ......... 10,11,13,17,19,22,23,28,61,69–72 БОВ ЖИ denna Сосо сусыз ие ыт И T 9 arctibrachiata huntsvillensis, Pentremites ............................. 60 Armenocrinus Strimple and Horowitz, 1971 ........................ 44 armiger, IA ЕТО ПО С лн ере PERO ед RUNE ни 34 ПИО ОИ eg е AREE чий не а, 34 asperatus, ПРАВНИ Ур c cM e TIT UD 50 Teal etat УТО ПИВА МУЗА ero eU ME TCR RED. Tuus cM ie 50 PASICLOCHINUS CAMAS LYON Зо DS Astylocrinus laevis Roemer, 1855 aulicus; DASCIOCYD SENE ея Auisich«(19080)..../.. e Чаш, Ausich and Bottjer (1982) Aviculopecten NU Coy, КОЗ rm а. Bangor Limestone ae Ол лл RE EE Bangor-Glen Dean sand belt .... баттісь-Опуспаўейанае ваны, аа аа ва... Baryorinus hoveye (Mal ОА T. Bassler (1935) КОРЫ Wi CE 7) 24,60,61 Bassler (1936) 5,17,19–21,60,61 Bassler апа Moodey (1943) .......... 6,20,30,33,36,42,50,58,60,61 Ваве ВУ Ој осеке onsets coum ttn es want eee BOR а, PEE RE 47 Вашег (LEII) ние d Е ee сана аа 44 Вапше апа РОС ов eer eter ой ыл UT 5)5) bayensis, ООЙ ДОН ИИ жулын ы зул ка t Tec e AM Mene: 43 Ж ДАЛАШ ЛУКА A ана к КаК ИЛИ ы 43 MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 93 Обаме Сатоси кабыныр tuse e ERU Са ТЕТЕ o7 Веб) cities ЛА НЫМ RERO 60,61 Вее) рен ОО A 61 'Bellerophon:Menttoru 1308. а нинин. аа КЕ: 19 bellulus, ОЛ И ИШИ s AI DER EL E RUE oe 47,48 зе асн s eiiim OMNE 48 Zeacninusqumidos coin eee ds e d RE eee Berea College, Berea, KY benhardinaewdmpeloaninüse vectes 44,45,68 Bicidiocrinus: Пре, ШОЮ acto: 16,20,22,26,33,34 wetherbyi (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886) ..... T3 201210 34,80 bifurcatus, TAUTA ABD TS О SUL TO SE кы аа ае аа ОКА а ин 54 VAGA ELS Lee OT VR ON pM е ccn НОР 31–33 AU АНРИ он НИ уктаи йе еа олы eRe 30 ВЕШ асаа а а ша ел ара {7 ЖИШШ a se GMCS) аран аа асе аа а 60 ВШ Опака а eem E M ра 71 ТТЕ ОО а Se а рат e Cae yee Ка E 7 bisselli, ТИЙСЕ ДОШ cc E азе а а uu ECL РОК ОСИУ @ qe e auium Poteriocrinus (Scytalocrinus) Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling (19682) ............ 19,20,21,25,40,65 Bjork Goldberg. andeseshng (1968D) eere e 21,40,65 FEIN ОН SERRE TOS TEE DO dvo СОЕ! QUSS e es eee олу калау ыкса начай я ШШ дае асанна NM M MM ETT ЗФ Ово ва у а Ра ЗАН lcd лунан тоз dats ELE РООДО ШОНО deco eu нестане aar сада 5 Brea thitutals ова ај отете ара и на ырыссыз носи Вісела ане (толе) ке аа ane аа кыш анале brevilatus, WCU GNU TULL GS PASC Tots Chet GaP SOS etc Y а Tenn qu) SN за ры оон Рк2у15, РОПТеЙШех наваныя Broadhead (1981) .... s x BroadbsaebüloSo)b. ve e c де ые E E Broadheadsancd: У пе ШОО 28,56 iso ен давана ты ана Бу PUE Brown (1849) .......... Buch ОВА) Висктап (1906) Burdick andi аре б а LIE 47—51 Bimdickand SME (ПОЛ у шый иии Екы 30,33,53 Burdick апа ере ыша ы барыла e аа 52 Вита о Балан У а ове 21 ехо |Кетрин рый cc 56 ВОО ОШАСА Ө зз рае сасны аа 9,68—70 Butts (1918) Butts (1922) cachensis, ПОСТО НИМ S UN CC ETIN CDS РАСЛО те Calliasterella Schuchert, 1914 americana Kesling and Strimple, 1966 ......................... 67,68 americanus Kesling and Strimple, 1966 ........................... 68 Ca Ian АИА torte Nc Борн ась Calyptactis Spencer, 1930 ....... confragosus (Miller, 1892) .... demissus (Miller, 1892) ............. perarmatus (Whidborne, 1896) .................................-..... 67 Бренсан ри аца 12-5. 5,20,66,67,68,91 spinosus Spone 0805 eei УЬ Н 66,67 campanulus, EDV OSCIOGHINUS. BD.) HIM ЖЕСЕ ERN ADAM dur gen 40 Ша ту eie За 16,20,21,23,39,40,41,65,82 Саш еШ о и Аан AUR Ке? МЕШИ; 5 Camptocrinus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 ........ 16,18,28,57 alabamensis Strimple and Moore, 1973a .......................... 57 beaveriMoore:and Jeffords, 1068... 7-1 аа 57 cirrifer (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) ..... Sra 17,2056; 57,87 nultiomusiSpringer2d026.....3.52— EMI UOCE 37 myelodactylus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 .................. 57 ?Camptocrinus alabamensis Strimple and Moore, 1973a ....... 57 canadetisisedalaechinuiss 24. ИТНО One Л ЕРДА ана canalissbeniremitesicuxiq eo naue une Ep TOR capitalis Astero wint а НА, BE OIE (eae cariniferous, Linocrinus Carter-coordinate location Casseday and Lyon (1862) cestriensis, Diaphragmus Forbesiocrinus .... LINON Нн e аа sien, Т DEB SN (позно m e аа на. ЛЕЙЛА а Ghesnut«üpsprepatatioD) аа аа a 18,26 Ghesnutand: БЕО ОИ 4) а а an P755 chesterensis, (Gigi or EE AEN i au VICOS S Cae кнр Chomatodus Agassiz, 1843 Cidaris urii Fleming, 1828 Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Texas Pacific Railroad .............. 6 Cincinnati-Southern Railroad cut (old bed) [7 Locality 1] .. 6,17, 20,33,34,49-51,55,58—60,63,69,80—82,84,86—91 Cinginnati=Southerm: Railroad System? И 6 cirrifer, CAamploorinusx aieo ийын ды М 8 ДД 17,20,56,57,87 DichockinusGamplocrinus) s er ne Don ta me 57 V CIGGOGUS нана ныя dte teo bee te eL eet аны ы eset Гы bd 18 (Gon ene АИ АН TRE ЭШКӘ 29 Clarke (1901) .. 2.2750) (ЈЕНИ О) е SEE аца ЭЖЕЕ UE Igea оо 63 Gleiothyridina:Buckoaan: 0906... oun ERST 19,70 SuplamellosaaEialbsb858) 1. rri ee НЕ 17,61 Glo ensis МЕНСК ВЫ RUE 55 Clover Bottom [= Locality 6] .. 6,17,20,33,39,53,58-61,72,85,88 Goc/MIOdusuNSASSIZ; 1949: ыгы eiu АШЫШЫ ДЫ АДЕ 18 Gollrenebrederok е аа Nae Stee а Б аа аа КЫ 5 COMMMGNSCUIS Мн аа асаан ЗМЕНЕ Я 21:28 compactus, ЈА A E A SEEE E аа ВА TA O A T Ыы иын ао АТСА а СОРЛА oe а deiecti. T TR Composita Brown, 1849 ....... subquadrata (Hall, 1858) .... confragosus, Calyptactis ........ CONICUSPA BASSIZOCIINUS: iiia НЫ ы. COMIGUSH Cle) НА OSSIZOCHINUS ыссы аннын o LIS E m ЕСКИ Conrad (1840) o e uk Conularia Sowerby, 1821 COOKS on TAMOS See сь e ONLUS Mus d TNT. Gopodus St: Join and Worthen;-1883.... CA NEL 18 94 BULLETIN 330 QUID CTIA ЛӨ кана T S Cue o Seres vies cc Be ные НА КЕ 62 ODOC US DIG HOT TRUS av OR toteis AA A 99 О а с c de Mu rq repu 23 Cotyledonocrinus pentalobus Casseday and Lyon, 1862 ......... 56 ЕА АСО а chesterensis Miller and Gurley, 1897 Cromyocrinus gracilis Wetherby, 1880 КООШО ТОЕ та сва NE cnet duse зурны Ctenacanthus Agassiz, 1843 .. b Сари асое О енна аа ата ieu E seda elegans (Wachsmuth and Springer) .................................. HUSSOULICHSTS: (SNU, ЕЭ c ње co E TRU TR сака vagulus (Miller and Gurley, 1895) ...... Cyathocrinus Honans У andell'aud:Strumard, АТ. 36 maniformis Yandell and Shumard, 1847 .......................... 48 Cyathocrinus? macrodactylus Phillips, 1841 ......................... 92 cylindricus, ОККО УОЛА О О Шш л а 48,49 ЖОО Cina О ЖУ ле А АЖ ая 48 CVIIROLICUS SIs ОУУ ENONOCTINUSHAL eer ы-дын 48 Cymbiocrinus Kirk, 19445 ................ anomalos (Wetherby, 1880) VOTIS Ela ва бурна аа E UT con ИЕ RCS саћа ОЙДО. а EM PARET. 20,36,37,81 ОООО ЗИНИН S ЗБЕ Я arrested acc 37 lyoni Kirk, 19445 m Y ви pitkini Strimple, 1955 ............. СК БИСКЕ Н roD EV NE ГО СИЕТ NO AAS нао аг TE) oH PUTT HOUSES AA ВН E E а адары 937 dacris, ALAS SI ZOCTINUS А л дз узы. туз... лыд Н 46,47 dactyliformis (сЁ), Agassizocrinus .......... d ы 20,25,46,47,83 ОНУ US CVVO TIAS тера ван se cv S Йй o oe rece bes Daniels Jacket o odo ms erect: дики. Dasciocrinus Kirk, 1939 .... aulicus Strimple, 1963 ..... cachensis (Weller, 1920) Alorialis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) .......... D eee 20,36,81 A CHUN ELH EL DY sO О) De. аи fert hs coacti 36 spinosus (Owen and ротата, 18524) areren ii vertes 36 Равна СВЕ а ане rare и atte ОО О OS 17 ОЗО, РАНО СНУ ойи лазии сызы а ыва 51 ПУ АО ОРАП (ОЕ) лыланы evertere er ERR у 26 Decadocrinus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1880 ...................... 47 Па ОИ а ак ED e ode ee N Траян ecl 47 decornis, Talarocrinus 20150. Dus tears ССНИ TH UNE RA 58 Deltodus Newberry:and: Worthen, 1870.1: д.н. 18 ЕН РИА ае нас ВЕ, etm a dad 67 depressus, ОООО СР раг жаы е а АЕ АМ 34 Pterotocrinus ы. а Юл» 17,20,22,24,25,27,54,55,70,87 PO SIDON blo SOM a Анне аа ьн З CIAO ДИА УНИИ НП арар УИ 0. А а И АН Па а а ИУ WW Ortheny 1560)... ан И гэ» Dichocrinus Münster, 1839 P cornigerus Shumard, 1857 ............ pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon) .... Mis picar НАШ аба ер Etat аа cc (Obes dare superstes Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 ................ б ae Baas 56 Dichocrinus (Camptocrinus) cirrifer Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 Р ЧР sh зь ае, А eo 19 UD ISCOGV STIS GILC ROMY ООУ.) 60,61 ASKOSKICMS Шаш. hos ава аа еВ 61 laudoni Bassler, 1936 БСУ Цара У и es E distensus, Onychocrinus doverensis, ОМОШ ЛЕУ РВ лт лак л к ЕН ПИ 30-33 Да M AT cavas аран ыа ана аа 30 durabilis, Eupachycrinus VAGUE UA eds ecole seri ri S ЛЛ em UR 51 БИА ДК ева 199 Ө) a па та е E ба а 60 elegans, Ў ОЛ К ИЛЛ ЕДА A лыо лы E NO CT Culmicrinus ... Pentremites ....... Scaphiocrinus СИА, ВОТСОН ENGring godoni Domanice Пе ОН eS Eng ИОС 0,16) кы Майы аа ан на qtue аа Eee Englund, Roen, and DeLaney (1964) TEX LOI ОУ ЛИОН (ШОЛ ые или E ЕПСО audeswadolplt (197 ЗУ 59.992 92 9. 2 9 1 лш ы, Eridopora Ulrich, 1882 Ettensohn (1975а) Ettensohn (1975b) Ettensohn (1977) Ettensohn (1978) Ettensohn (1980) Ettensohn (1981) Ettensohn and Bliefnick (1982) Ettensohn and Chesnut (1979) Ettensohn and Chesnut (19852) Ettensohn and Chesnut (1985b) 99 ОООО АЙЧ Ре рога Ое Etteusoutyer d (OSA) e ур о н оул ои лын Ettensohn Collection ........... Eumetria Hall, 1864 ........... ак Eupachycrinus Meek and Worthen, 1865 ................. Suo 27550 GSDELALUS WN OTME ye S Ode EI 50 boydii Meek and Worthen, 1870 ................. SL 20,51,84 aavidsoni Burdick and Simple, 1969, т 51 Зарас (Millet асаку ОИ 51 ПИТИ У Це Де ра кшн сн e аа Spi US ONN ON E AE EEE SU о 50 irregularis Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ............................... гд maniformis (Yandell and Shumard) bc xi E] ПОНОСА Маа ЦА ENOR SI T i i, 50 АВА ере АЎ ве соо ая SEEE ылыы да Б) variabilis (Sutton and Winkler, 1940)... sil каў аа оли се: EXON GUON: кыл л ege exsculptus, Onychocrinus ОЛЕ ОСО ИЕ Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839 Желкен ак (OT Ше гәл send com ee td КЬ fimbriatus, Ampelocrinus S Jesi CC CLS Sib н E дыы ЫКЫ кыл ы ea anda TONS Fistulipora M'Coy, 1849b овца (1@28 а fesse flexilis, Onychaster ......... florealis, Poteriocrinus MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 95 florialis, (ШОС ЙИ ДКО emia умы EU M M 36 OST АЛ ў SR e ЛКК АУ аон Di КА ТҮ 20,36,81 ПОПУЊЕНЕ БЕЛ aoo АНЫ DIS аа по ES 59 Yohsivfiamonensis НОПО О зуга Оеп 59 Forbesiocrinus COSTUIGN STS A АШ US OR нәзари о E DAVVUSIW CUETO L STID аа coron tone sete а TR МИЛЕР НА SOS eere ore reet ны ос ТОЛО, Ор а ТЕ voco ARTES formosus, ERONOGHITUS AS os a inte teed ea os E Re ZEACHINUSB ыа Rd formosus (сї), Phanocrinus formosus (sp. сЁ), Phanocrinus ПОЕН ИО ПО Л ДУ RE ROC. cereos Т с аст fazo te PRIO UE К К О ОТТЕ ERES ONE Fraileys Formation Frazier (1975) fusiformis, ОПОРИ, а roo о Дн d me 31-33 VIEN E sec e CER кү чт 32 Galloway:andsKaska)(J95/2)ER Кызлы М лиш. атир eee 58—60 БОНИ ПИ ЛИ ас! уст, OE ана s cod а 51 беа (АН ene ose (eel. аа аа 26 IA CIMOSCIMAMANOCTITIUS тае RERO RENTRER 52 Ginty ОЕШУ) e IDEO Bok hectare. rre demi s girtyi, Pentremites (С РЎ тае 0b EE НЕЧТО A ТОМА ТО НОВ КОКТА НОВЕ С i seins cose arar ы OTE 7,39 Limestone 5,7,11,18,37,43,44,46,56,58 lower massive Glen Dean КӨНӨ E ЕСА РР Е оа о А ТЕЕ ТҮ 6 Степи вани ась, годопи, Епсгіпа годопи abbreviatus, Pentrem Golconda Formation Limestone .... vs ЖЕ d. Shale 38 X1 ао AN sen er Aen. STORE Sonet gracilis, Agassizocrinus Cromyocrinus Eupachycrinus Рет атата. ese йана не Бака: 20,50,84 ФИ ЕК SNR БЕМАНЫ: АД аа EE EE са 38 Phanocrinus 50 Scytalocrinus 38 grandiculus, VEO MANNS, Баба anc m RC NET IRE ated аа 31-33 ПРАВНИ n REUS dE E A EL LT таа 30 CHORUS DIODORUS лн ый км а Dosis 20,36,37,81 Graphiocrinus quatuordecembrachialis Lyon, 1857 ................ 50 gravis, Cymbiocrinus 37 йау (S40) ee ae SEE E OT DE d аа Great Britain Greb, Stephen S. СОВОК І Об ан ака та ата CERE 65 (йерогу(@ӨФ/ И АА ДЕН o аа аа 60 СООТУ Е ere Gerencia и RIDERE 3j EAS C KINO OM Ga а аа NM 62 Haeretocrinus Moore and Plummer, 1940 ........................... 39 Hall (1858) Hall (1860) Hall (186 1a) TRENT [ББ epee Ма а ieee р, На ы 65 Hall (1864) 19 Hall (1883) 19 tania cha GO OS) аса САВА АВИВ И i te eA ERE UE 20,58,59 ОРОН ВЕ СИ СУ КД cs stat wel eva ы Ex tus c RUP MOT CRT 59 LARS Yar: OLE ALONE aye сыананы а а аала мады 38 аве ооа а se avin tak eee eer ec ro eC HENRI DERE AREE EIE шол 5 Hartselle Зеўсу аў акоў О ОУ AE ERI 69 басазо аа аа Ie me SQ TAL Shalom toes mt cee en A ness 7,8,10,11 Heckel (1972) 14 HOTMSDHGNIGUS RENEE ES сене e Uca oe elei rr oe азе ЖАЛЕП 59 hemispinifera, Archaeocidaris ........... I ы 5,19-21,63,64,90 Ола а Ба. ыа горњи а NE CR rmt RE TOO 5 Обе Ре анаа И 5 БОЛОМ С EO OS) EE аа 6,16,20,21,30,32,34,38-40, 43,46,48,49,51,52,54,55 Horowitz, Macurda, and Waters (1981) ......................... 58—60 Horovi erar ОО) ДА Ls omes pesa dax ршн caca ze ile НАП Й 9 Horowitz and Strimple (1974) .... 9,53,56 Horowitz, Alan S. eroe eti eerte 5,21,22,56,59 oye ВОО S E E E E 65 ИОС ОБОИ ИЕ аннан co TERRE C 52 Тааак суа ОДО азе адары cd RM ИА ER а Hydreionocrinus armiger (Meck апа Worthen, 1870)... fas. Аны 34 depressus WET ELD ISEI а наса аа ат 34 SDIMOSUSIW O00, 28909 Gt. OR ЊЕ ПЕЊЕ ДЕ и а 34 wetherbyi Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886 33,34 Буда (УЗ аа а нана аран а АН FIV DSCIOCTINUS Kiik. | OF OW а. авы campanulus Horowitz, 1965 Hyrtanecrinus Broadhead and Strimple, 1980 .............. 16,28,56 diabolus Broadhead and Strimple, 1980 ........................... 56 pentalobus (Casseday and Lyon, 1862) .... 8 ...... 20,56,57,87 ШОК шеси а о орар знн ыа ана ан бе цер ан нле ЫН ЕРИ ПЕН з Еке ты bd OMe он к Пра МА ЕРИ БИ ере ИН РАНИ А пи ае ыс ENS DI MINOIS BIS о immanis, Archaeocidaris .... TO ad oo cec Алена а Indiana Geological Survey inflatoramus, Pentaramicrinus 48 Phanocrinus 48 Intermediacrinus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 L3 APUS опен 882) ese ен Д 50 variabilis Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ................................. 51 Јоца пио Дакле МЕТО аа eran etas antro irregularis, Eupachycrinus Irvine-Paints Creek Fault Zone IU: Geology Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, UNS Ыы А ROSA шкы наны ПАН 5,6,39,40 Jackson Оо) о ана а а Jacksons (iO) pew: aed ЫЕ а UR. ная Jackson, Robert Tracy jacksoni Palatinus, X etas. etes E 5,19,20,62,63,90 Паво Коло ЫЫ ES a еә нече ы N F 30,42,51,58 Марац б ы А МАЗАРИ EUR К у ц ае 26 96 BULLETIN 330 ПА а Па Ко ӨЙДЕ E OE Es ды еы ПИ а MR 7,39 kaskaskiensis, рас ЦЕ QUII ао Адо 17,20,44,45,83 Discocystis 61 Orthotetes 17 Poteriocrinus 44 kentuckiensis, Мариа LOS SER әз с. мине јр ы 31-33 О Еў ух. аса оаа Ыы 30 адне аў c PNE а а а 53,69 Папе pend pP EIEEE SES IG A A A чана 6 Breckinridge Co., Cloverport 39 Cres. equ c UON зана a 7l Clover Bottom ive ООО TAT} а NES баса аве 6 АЗР СОЛИ dl E IE БЕЗ LAUS anexo" 7,9,13 E БИРАНИ МАДА Е ОННАР ОЕ ИДИЕВ АЕ 7с. ШЕ 17218356 CHIP SOU SDLIEpS ао cesa ky дас LS Д ллы ы ВИР IO Ed ЖИ 6,72 Lake Cumberland Laurel Co. Lincoln Co. London Morrill Mt. Vernon northeastern ПЛДЕ BEI ROI i СЬ atm M. D alas трохи 9,68 СОЗШЕН саннын БО ИИИЙ, тон 70 Sloans Valley .. 9,14,34,37,38,40,49,51,55,57,58,61,62,68,69 abes valle co a CROSS. bee аа ЗЯ рае 70 Се зена а а аа, ORI EE PEDE PORE 7,9,11 ауе DOBLE ERE LOISIR Dos Duro (etes 21 Kentucky Geological Survey). m CHE а ob eot Ud 5 спіша River Paull Zone T 305: Jua Tabor e Qro 10 Красе а 15 DOUMdary не ни а Ў ee 9 Kentucky State Highway 80 Kesling and Strimple (1966) СОАО сс асырады а А А ата уу ү. ОНО ДИ КА АПР ПА ыд АНА е АШАЙ ЖИ» hup ОЗО А АДА ИАКО ИН И Nes ED аа нан 19 аа ДИ та аран а А АЕ Oe A E 53 Кик (1937) 6,27,47–50 Teu PU SONA н E cate А ИВ И СОС. у 22,35 Кик (1939) . 26,33,34,36,64 Kirk (19402) 6,20,28,45,46 BOR (EDAD: seccion UMBRA SUC. DER UIS ПРИЈА АИ 38,39 KE ШОНЫ ЕН re cette cens RE аа 6,17,20,26,44 ТСЕ (TOAD Ву cuc eco SOE А RERO 6,36,44,45,68 Funke Gb ARA оператор tea ott RE ТИЛЕШИ СИНЕ; 43 Kirk (1944b) ..... Knapp (1969) 2... hs ар ОУ О Оши АТАРА ИН laevis, СО І Попа И УРА аец ана be E Astylocrinus lagrandensis, Archaeocidaris vac eld. ec M i TIERE Lambert and Thiery (1910) с: Lamour “Candy ers eee нат lanceolatus, У ААА У лата кы rath ACHES КА сан а кызу: Zeacrinus Lane (1963) Lane (1975) Lane (1984) Lane, N. Gary large (defined) Laudon (1941) Laudon, Parks, and Spreng (1952) laudoni, ТОБОСУН е анна на ань OUS EUR I eU Lise: E SOIN 60 ерои и ыа ТО и 5,17,19–21,60,61,89 Laurel County Quarry [= Locality 5] ......... ОХООО ЗА. 36,37,39,44–47,49,51,53,55—59,61,64,71,80,81,83–90 laurelensis, Linocrinus .................. Дн 5,20,22,27,34,35,80 ПОИ ЕОС ИШ а А AS 35 Lawson, Магу Lee Formation ОЛДУЛАР VATA IGUCOM I LAL oxo, ОЛУ УО ОО NN 17 Lepidesthes Meek and Worthen, 1868 ......................... 19,25,62 coreyi: Moek and Worthen 1868 62 ПОПИО Miler О Ib 17-20,62,90 spectabilis (Worthen and Miller, 1883) ............................. 62 Lepidodiscus Meek and Worthen, 1868 .............. 16,24,25,60,61 laudoni (Bassler, 1936) ............ 10555 5,17,19–21,60,61,89 Sampson Ме LSI) ооо Ма Ча 61 squamosus: Meek and Worthen 1868, ренина Е 61 ЈЕСУ ВИ азарае E a ERREUR GN 62 Ји andi Maden (969) ee ооо REUS 7 ПОЕТИКЕ (ОДАН ONIS ER ODORE а 52 limatus, Aphelecrinus lineatus, WACO GH IIIS Ee Е Rd etuer ovre а VCI LISSE (roe ied e Hep укук бакавы ае Н АЯ Linocrinus Kirk, 1938 S СООЛУ ХОШ ШОШ 5 713) а tueri ORTOS HM 35 carinifer ous N өеп, 18773), нанач ИЕ BS faculensis (Laudon, Parks, and Spreng, 1952) .................... 35 ПАКИ р е. Dv. 5,20,22,27,34,35,80 аии (illemangds Curley 996) ая 35 praemorus (Miller and Gurley, 1890b) ............................. 35 scobina (Meek and Worthen, 1869) ................................. 35 wachimi ОВ па BERN заь IONS 35 Перо A уа Я с а И рлык кы REDE 5 lobatus, Agassizocrinus 24,25,46,55 Locality 1: Cincinnati-Southern Railroad cut (old bed) .. 6,17,20, 33,34,49–51,55,58–60,63,69,80–82,84,86–91 Locality 2: Southern Railroad cut (new bed) ........ 6,20,33,49,55, 59,70,84,88 Locality 3: Strunk Construction Company Quarry ...................... niis cipi РИЯ 620219334, 36—40,44—47,49,51—53,55,56,58—62,64—66,68,70,80—85,87—91 Locality 4: Somerset Stone Company Quarry .... 6,20,46,71,83,85 Locality 5: Laurel County Quarry .......... 6,10,11,20,21,33,34,36, 37,39,44—47,49,51,53,55-59,61,64,71,80,81,83—-90 Locality 6: Clover Bottom .....:. 6,17,20,33,39,53,58—61,72,85,88 COCA АИ О ВАРА ен аа 5,6,20,55,56,59–61,72 longidactylus, ПРАСЕ ОИ сусв аа И E A 20,38,39,81 (POLEITOGLINIUS: (ЭСТОО ERSTER 38 ООЛО ИБ БЫ WERT OR MITE ТИИТ UAR 38 EOUSCALEN OOD) E rc Тя 17,19 iagoa а ен уры сы И ДОРА 50,53 TE VOU (LS OO) а а нана і QW т oum 20,58,59 Lyon and Casseday (1859) .......... 17,21,22,24,26,28,46,51,53,58 MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 97 Lyon and Casseday (1860) ............. 17,20,25—27,30,33,51,54,55 lyoni, Anartiocrinus 20,28,29,45,46,83 Cymbiocrinus 37,38 РЕ DUO TIT ооу клы Kee nm ES ame UMS 60 IVONTSTACILEHIS РЕЙ CINILCS T RR SERENO RA 60 EPP OD ONG cn tu c EUM, LE APER RE 69—71 TYODOFEHOSSIDIDSONS EROS S TRE 17,19,23 Maccoya Pomel боо, Мана аа 63 Mactarlane: (1890) сва аа MISES ELE РИН 6 WIGCFOdAaeby lus “Cy QUNOGLINUS а аа БОЕ начана ANY 52 Macurda and Мус) A 14,17,22,23 Маситаа D- Bradforde а на СО. ФАШ ЖАЛИ 5 таста аш апаат ото е, tex ee dar аа 50 тарпопавјовти у JL eacTinites о СЛИ. 30-33 Табли ORVCHOGTINUS E. ана АИА 51 maniformis, СУЛЛО T e essere s ERU a RS АИО а ана EL UD ACH CPIAUS ix e eL E M НИИ PPHAMOGTINUS eee a Bee Oe Ee ВОХ POET TOVE UI SA AR CC EDS А TERRE TE T SIUE EY IS OVO CUS ons ass Vai RR CERRAR RATES AA ARE USE PE БССР dm TUE I LEE Matsumoto И siamese eee ee eee e nee ees Maxville Еше олова m eee OPEP RI S eek maxvillensis, Anartiocrinus Marvillensis (СЇ) ANGTUOCKINUS eee RR qux 83 McChesney (1860) McChesney (1865) McChesney (1867) McRanneycql9 78) Eireren sieo rene IERI МеКативуг (79) на eodem eei а AA илы ERI ELIT NE МОКШИву (699) cited col CURL, ORC EDS ЛЕКИН McKinney and Gault (1980) 1 MPGOY (18443) Е eos cec а ЛАМА на IRURE 25,62,63 M'Goy (TSAA ИКА а ОЗЕ МА ЗОО ана 17,19 M’Coy (1848) M'Coy (18492) M'Coy (1849b) МЕСОМ ІЗ на пре сте ал и MER S ОНО ERE 17,19 теди (абе панела ма а А ЛИГА. 30 Meek апа Worthen (1865) Meek and Worthen (1868) Meek and Worthen (1869) Meek and Worthen (1870) Meek and Worthen (1873) 20,34,51 Meekopora Ulrich, 1890 19 THenardensis; PlerotoGDWWs а AR tro ERR атам 55 Meyer (1989) а ees, ИЕ. AME ОШЫН Ius 18,21,26 Meyer and Ausiche WIES ў. н, ER ЖИН T 20522 Meyer. and Ма сна а (TITI) ае на. ШЕШЕГЕ ПЛАН 21 Meyer and Maeurdasullos0)icen аа ИИ 22 Meyer (дб) заны. е ANM TR E О а 42 Maller (Те) eae ыйла etia e e Y RETE EET ES 30,42 Ме les Ye veces а ви аны TUER DEL UNSERES 6,17,19,20,38,51,62 МАШО 65889) V. iic irre vere eerte аа ан 44,45,50,53,56,64 МИП Во) аа Cree а ен Na ERR ARENIS 61,64 Maller (ӨЗУ C cC OM ue e ава аа 67 Miller- and Gurley (18908)- а аа аа ES 27 Millerand Gurley (18900) а NUTS 35,64 Miller and Gurley (1894) .................... 20,30,33,47-49,51,52,61 Miller and Gurley (1895) ........ 6,16,20,21,26,40,42,43,50—52,55 Ма етан GUEY 0590) oes а oe 6,20,30,33,35,40,42 Müller and Gurey Ца ы e UNE UR S PRU 23 milleri, Decadocrinus Poteriocrinus .... Ramulocrinus ОПОРАВИ) E Mississippi River Valley MiSSOULL S ДЕ Е E нн аа паа missouriensis, Culmicrinus .. ДУО ВАН О) SR OA QUAE Kc аны я Зь Monitor (Е О) 100923. cte DU AR ERE ТАЙЫЗ Moore and Jeffords (1968) Moore Lanc and Stompie 8). еса 47,50 Moore and Laudon (1943) .................... 6,30,36,38,42,43,50,53 Moore and Laudon in Shimer and Shrock (1944) Moorsand Plummer 1938) але с НМ Moore and ед0). о EA а Moore and Sttimple:(1969). оа С еа h.t Morrill [= Locality 7] МОВА) И Mere c ME AME 52,64 Moms and Roberts: (1862) o. К лд Нана cu ee ВИ 18 Muller Nogami and епо). а аа a 21 multicirrus, Camptocrinus multiramosus, Actinocrinus mundus, PLT TID CLOG HUNG trite tees ЕЕ UE o n VAD CLC OPI SR ee анала, o RC E а ЛИСА орос иа далыда МИТЕ О RUE OE eec сада осо cS myelodactylus, Camptocrinus Newberry and Worthen бо) 18 Newboemy and ошен (1870). а 18 Newman Limestone КИ Glen Dean Member 6,7,9,11,14,26,36,56 IRE yal VIG na ic OT T TORO D T сеа Se 25 Hatdinsburg Shale Member а.е 7-11 shale member 7 upper member 7 МИК ЕН ПУШЫМ] И Ааа КИП НЕ 47 араў аца ў в ана СТ аон d UE 49 Моюн О2@) ш. 5А Шз ыкы Ls North America O Макан BOE AQ Ol occ ex Loc P mS conce E HN 7 obesus, Zeacrinites Zeacrinus Ohio, C Ma rece е alte eae acs ao ы M 6 Muskingum Co., Newton Township ................................ 46 ORAWENSIS e PentYeDPlos о ne ed pus ая 60 Onychaster Meek and Worthen, 1868 ................ 21,25,40,65,66 Бат а (Halle 8006); VEST аа Ban qe. паа 65 flexilis Meek and Хот пет S680. ана ee 65 strimplei Bjork, Goldberg, and Kesling, 1968a ........................ V MEE анна ЕДЕ ec 12 .... 19-21,23,25,40,65,91 Onychocrinus Lyon and Casseday, 1860 ................. 16,25:26:57 distensus Worthen: 1382-1900 В Jes seti gere 51 exsculprus Lyon and Gasseday, 1860-5 за КЕ 51 lddelensis Wright, БЕДА НА И УО ме Вох 5r ТАЗИ УТО GH Seas. паа НЕ SI parvus Mirand Gurey IIR С cst es 52 Onychocrinus, pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1895 .......... 6 3 16,17,20, 21,26,51,52,85 катарзе (Lyon and Casseday; 1959) о.о metuens 51 WC CERAM ОЕ etu Pen ы m 52 Vp SAIS о ари is 19020 о T P M MEL нана 52 Onychocrinus ramulosus group of Springer (1920) ................ 51 ?Onychocrinus parvus Miller and Gurley, 1894 ..................... 51 С ОТЕУ ОТВ лууну ио он уе нунак scie eid qaod 58 Orthotetes kaskaskiensis (McChesney, 1860) ovalis, Zeacrinites Zeacrinus Owen (1838) Owen (1840) Owen and Shumard (18522) ......... 9,17,21,20,24,25,28,36,46,47 GweandiSRurmard (18520) oes HEIL айни etas chu 36 ОИСИ РИО EA coctis nee tee E Wa EOD n tien 43 Pachylocrinus cachensis Weller, 1920 Раше Creek Formation seere 51) nw E Tulapaimis M Coy., 1844а@. аон CON OG CTISIS qe 1953. rs Ны ео сыыр үт elipicus Lambert and шегу, 4940; 62 ДО d б. оиы ree rer 11. н 5,19,20,62,63,90 Palgechimus?) minor Jackson; 1912......... oor fat cer ee 63 Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, NY .................... 5 E S ero ЕЕ ОРТ Lo ud 9 Parazeacrinites Burdick and Strimple, 1971 ......................... 30 DOVVGDASANS EE ANACTINUS оаа еннай 49 ратата D ROVOCRUNMS «ue o eoec oe eoe ыз... Дара 20,49,84 ЈОНА ИУ ENRONIN AS. oe Aa, а AU AE д. ыда 49 parvus, ОВО orte АМ Md PE POE 52 АСО аа A nre d ae ТО ЗЕКЕ НАБИ 52 [UT I а ПАРА ENS co tpe dn cer RR TTE Ре 51 AE A NCTIIIUCS A Re аа и а л a ee Ne EHE 60 peculiaris, RUDI Cee оа ар аца, Cee, 31-33 ОИ Ие ат а аа aR УНН: р 30 DENCE SIT ПАС ДЕЛУ x ctc а TH 56 Pennington Formation ............ 7—,11,13,14,17,18,26,27,30,56,58 САПЕ Caves Sande To hoo eur A TORS АОН el e аа аа E ыу © i a ТТОЫ 7213 ОБ е poe р er EE PEE REP EN 13 alo) ОБЕО СО НЕКО СЕ э... унту pe DR MM 7-,11,14,69-71 [Iai sees (icant sear ries nile [oy ра паа ES аер 8,11,13,68,69 HOW or dark shale member аман ee TES) Sloans Valley member ........ 5,7-11,13-15,17-19,21,22,24-28, 34,38,39,46,54,58—60,62,65,68—72 upper shale member ... 8,11,13,68 DOES о Роја па «co o А А Са ара а 10 pentalobus, (СОНИ СО ПОСТЕЊУ исл еы te parce у cua do каннын 56 DOF ИЛАК ЛУ TTD S. TIONES. 56 Hyrtanecrinus A mm 20,56,57,87 Pentaramicrinus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 PERETE 16,47,49,50 compactus (Sutton anid) Winkle >. : анис ET ores л leve 48 тас (Wetherby wl Зда эзи» дыы; Sof. 20,50,84 inflatoramus (Sutton and Winkler) .................................. 48 magniradianalis Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ....................... 50 pulasisiensis (Miller and Gurley) ....... 954 rst ee Анн 50 Pontremnes Sav 920. qi К. кд et rie Yi 16,19,58,59,69,70 ОМОК 9009525. ae Los ИЕ Ee Mee; ee vee 58 üuciibraehigta huntsvillensis Ulrich n. ео recess 60 BULLETIN 330 рае Othe ПОВ А eer Es 58 ОООО И У каа аўд rer нета аа ee е 59 canalis Ulrich, 1918 elegans Lyon, 1860 Johnsi аер 1905... x. fohsi marionensis Ulrich .. (GONE ШИШЕ оао ог НЫ. нуни угып 60 Odo aO ругу из Те Ба о НИ пе аа 58 ПОПРАВИ ВИ У че нанета: аа ара, PET 59 Werispienicis паша o oo c DARE нака даа 59 ЖО ШШШ s cU у ле ы MM Ба UVONMONACIIENS irich от okawensis Weller, 1920 patei Ulrich ТО ВЕБ xa свак нај nos Rd ЛЛУ ЛҮ ГО ЫН IDlatybasiseWellepe s oco Л о CO oa aA pyramidatus Ulrich, 1905 ЙО ИЖАУ, Бад ана Же 20,58,60,70,71,88 ТОЙЫ уо SOO 1 OO Оли. 16,20,58,59, ар САТИ SW MGC Dist ОДА erae en К Са АНА WIC Digg. OLB cen anos deo ае a ТГ и tulipaeformis Hambach, 1903 ................ 9o 3 20,58,59,88 Рија расни а аа аа eee 58 SIMA EN CIC NITE EIN LS УЫ 25 Gra matus рта УНИ re EO ooo T EM 67 БЕШЕ ОВА MENO RA. ion dee tens 66 Feny and Мото (Шо ба но 9 ега одие ЗАОЕ а act Rae. зарыва тана, odorem КИНЕ 18 Phacelocrinus Kirk, 19405 16,38 bisselli (Worthen, 1873) 20,38,39 onac ВЕСОВ E cUm C ecu СО Л ae 38 longidactylus (McChesney, 1860) ........... 2 AR 20,38,39,81 WAGHSINUINT (NVGtRETOV, 1880) E ан 39 еее КККК ОКУ ЕК E у 38 рана ее 1937 ы л аа ае 5,16,27,47,48,49 alexanderiSitrimple; 1948: 5 5... ЖОНЕ Бул brit eth: 49 bellulus (Miller and Gurley, 1894) ............................... 47,48 compactus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ........................... 48,49 cooksoni Laudon, 1941 ..................... cylindricus (Miller and Gurley) 8р. cf. Р. cylindricus (Miller апа Gurley) а. 48 formosus (Worthen, 1873) ...................... e 48 cf. P. formosus (Worthen) ...... ae 48 sp. cf. P. formosus (Worthen) 48 fragosus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 .................................. 49 ТАС УМЕО о И КОТ 50 inflatoramus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ............................ 48 maniformis (Yandell and Shumard, 1847) ... 5 ...... 20,21,47, nitidus (Miller апа Gurley, 1894) rarene i m parvaramus Sutton and Winkler, 1940 ......... parviramus Sutton and Winkler ............ planus Strimple and Moore, 1973b ыа Раев (ВА) és cin E саванна ПАВ Бе Phosphannulus Müller, Nogami, and Lenz, 1974 Phnynophiunidare e da coru dora uem E Cut o m pitkini, Cymbiocrinus planus, Phanocrinus Platyceras Conrad, 1840 Sable со oid Тара етене оО У каса неле DUCTUS DIGhOGTnWs everest ER SEL ЕЕ РОВВИО НАРАВ 01949... ВОК Domim Бе я DPolvDpota МЕ ВОН УДАТЕ DC а... аа аа а ROM UNIZOGUSIM, Coy; 1848 ии MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 99 Bommel Вб) ot. ate d a К нн erdt 63 Poppin- Rock- Member прес пио ied EE ЕЗЕН 9 тоге МОО ое En. Иа аса etd 42 bisselli Worthen in Meek and Worthen, 1873 о 30 pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley).... tees mye 42 vagulus Millerand бише 1895) а ow 42 Poteriocrinus ОДО УВ sS cc x E florealisShumard; 1855 лем. ouk kaskaskiensis Worthen, 1882 ........... maniformis (Yandell and Shumard) ne wulen Wete ron іб. tee. eee pulaskiensis Miller and Gurley, 1896 ........................... 40,42 regularis Meyer, 1858 42 Spinosus:Oweuancdsbumatrdi8528..... ..... ANEN 36 vagus Millerand Guiley 1995 eene ы. eO EVER E 42,43 waha БИ Nemo Ө аа qe Ea Н DIE. па 38 Poteriocrinus (Scaphiocrinus) randolphensis Worthen, 1873 .... 43 Poteriocrinus (Scytalocrinus) bissel (ОСЕ) ае Жим eto а oit М. xt (ОШОДА ПТС еу c uM M IE бё ЛЕЛЕ МИШӘ OUS быз л OSGI ты ана Dtaemotus, 1 ПОСТЕЊУ 851 nme oum А! ix [Prisynopotazklallsel88S9e 4 O81. counties Boa dice dM see proboselaialts RROD OGHINUS eres. па co oto cm PR Prouta(diS60) e. Жи се. а Psammodus Agassiz, 1843 Psephodus Morris and Roberts, 1862 der M mE tmt 5,16,17,20–22,24,26–28, 46,53,54,55,58,69—71 acutus Wetherby, 1879а ........ 6:709 16,20,22,24,25,27,54, 55,70,71,85,86 КООШО CHESS E ан на dene ИРА ОНАН КАМИ 54 Гоша О КЕЙ ДД аа о ИАА 22,54 Ога рай ань, ата а а CREE А. МОР 54 bifurcatus Wetherby о тоа v o лл DR аман аа 54 SONE ЛОЛА ОН ноа АЛЛ TRE нева 55 depressus ои а ава у У О дра TR iioii а але” балу пе а CET EM К ВО ТОО О 24,0502, 54,55,70,87 про Је ЕПУ КЕ зона 1924 брини аа 55 ОРО УСЕ ТӨЛ ОБ у.с а LI 54 ОСО аранда ана 55 Уа А Mier and шеу 55 sp. A of Horowitz (1965) 535: sp. B of Horowitz (1965) 54 sp. C of Horowitz (1965) 54 VATER CASE за UAM S ORC E TRU 3316012539 campanulus (Horowitz, 1965) ....... РРА 16,20,21,23,39, 40,41,65,82 pulaskiensis, Ара аа us. iot do crater d SUE. RRR UM IUE ына а 61 (63 еј Дете TIS о а а Gu 16,17,20,21,26,51,52,85 ОООО ко плина Patna а OT RO Тыла ae Ce REI 50 Poteriocrinites Poteriocrinus Ulrichidiscus Miether VOCANS ооа EE ES ATHEN, RC TOTO TIRES T НИ Punctospirifer North, 1920 pyramidatus, Pentremites pyriformis, Pentremites .................... quatuordecembrachialis, TIU DUG IV ERUS оа ао адн a e ИВ 50 Отаров E ыз кылза ая МИНИ тан аб 50 Ramulocrinus Laudon, Parks, and Spreng, 1952 ...... 16,22,23,47 miller (ееу 88). 4ш 20,27,47,83 nigelensis Laudon, Parks, and Spreng, 1952 ...................... 47 nünilosusuOnychoerinismd vel Verse О Э nobi suos 51 randolphensis, Aphelecniniises:+, ci au E olet E Бая dur "oterocrmussScaphiossinus)es а) ne ren ow EREA ЕЕ pec QE NR Rexroad and Clarke (1960) IG yMOlGSeIN OFA а сасе сале secs tesa cies Rhopocrinus Kirk, 1942a ......... municipalis (Wood, 1909) POROSUS W orhe а) — co а ee а 44 spinosus ТИК OAD an а а А ЖТ, 17,20,44,82 robustus, Pentremites St. John and Worthen (1875) St. John and Worthen (1883) ОШИ ОШ риба RECORDS ORE ЭО GIONE NES. Eso iet А и cr os MED DNE Ste Genevieve ds OMMAUOM с i. sampsoni, Lepidodiscus Sandalodus Newberry and Worthen, 1866 ........................... 18 Salva GIS? CO) RE ecu TE C ee т Заўа бг SR ЖҮ ТҮ Ке Тү EC EU A LL LL oc UN О ОВО Уна Geet n6 ПЕ E s ss s ogni Алые elegans Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 (опата с и Ме пепео 1960 onam. аа Qa ENN ellie one О ОАО ВОТ Е ара ОЗ) е see MER TENE ана ава Беш ШОО), con ek oos 0 E uror ine ctor eng Sehuchest ЛА) See. а. scobina, Linocrinus Scytalocrinus seg ele Thy ОЕП) жа Byte та es e ROLE абы 38 maniformis (Yandell and Shumard) Кора айбай. сваяк. аА. аады wachsmuthi Wetherby, 1880 Scytalocrinus? bellulus (Miller and Gurley) .......................... 48 Septopora Prout, 1860 ЗЛО ОЈ oec ence DER Lees Shumard (53) mes trot re. Shtumandi (isa A) met amete. ЖЕЗ. sh eee эн Shürmard sss cere Ра ы А oso REB Shumard (1857) Aaa diss скаса... E ES поа вте о) ае... allia doe ње as 18,21,26 Signor and BOAO D i аа dus 18,21,26 аза O S варанае б Шла 17,19 100 BULLETIN 330 ЗОБ аут одан дин і NOD CQ ланы аня Sloans Valley lagoon d 1086 Valley railroad: station а ао, о METERS 6 моле Valley sairoad tunnel- 2... coser rne ertet eee 6 ае Ие. CODE ики Бә» „азай. пруће Laits senis Smath, Margaret Somerset Quadrangle Somerset Stone Company Quarry [= Locality 4] Sostrocrinus Strimple and McGinnis, 1969 .......................... 42 Southern Railroad cut (new bed) [7 Locality 2] .... 6,20,33,49,55, 59,70,84,88 PO WORD OD) o esee улт eser oco c EN T e 18 BURTON Прас ДС ГА evo coe oa кке нн AOD Oe Ў 51 БОК САРА EET OO TOO ДАЙ 54 SPEGlODIStbepidestlie de sao кас атам патака 62 SONNO ыыы сы ы ena ia аон кыы те а 24 SJE, U0 ы Уа цана бара а качана N AR 66 ЕСА) dicte itane О dm din ы нанне 19,21,26,66,67 ПОЕ bl WIPE LIGO) e oed eoe RA аа сата 66 РОНЕ Ре уус л c е шеллак ар ЕН 66 ЖЕЛСЕ, Л ИО ees I2 dea 5,20,66,67,68,91 Ж ИЕ КОШ РЕЙ ГОН РАНИ ОО Mew Uber Me ае 58 spinifer, LE CITE Е" esee та ККК nter И ет 36 арта о Sey OR Net hee ie TOMER CORRE cto ate oe te 36 spinosus, EI О ИИИ E E Stee tin НИ лира ЛИ Im 45 Ө ОШО ШҮ sedendo qup cu ts ды ED БАЗОМ. 66,67 ДЗВЯ а ee MN MN А IS 36 ТОНО ШИН н era terere LENS, DEA ndo 34 КООН НИДЕ BENIN C C td ЛЕДЕ ЛЧ 36 HOLGER же varese est deae варанай SIRE 17,20,44,82 USADO RUD сә уг ган 15,16,20,34,80 ОЛОО аа 8 О0о аео ПОВЕО De 17 О А MN ERR NL DLE NE 23 ОВО 53) ыы. NES а, О tC Tn neces 51 уште (а 02 0 NT TER 0351552 Sprmger (926)... nce 6,24,28,30,33,34,42,43,46,54,55,57,58 Springer Collection ........ 5,6,33,34,37,39,43—46,55—57,59,61—63, 68,80-83,87-91 SICH ЕУ Ива РА ees ee A О DUELO 59 squamosus, “ПЕНИЕ a oe eee roa eo RUE vae ev Или Me А, Hat 60 ОРИОН ые ee ўвага аа а 61 ЖОЛОК ОПШИМ ОШОН, 1810... iiic AERIS DRE 19 Strimple (1948) Strimple (19512) Strimple (19515) .... Strimple (1955) Strimple (1961) Strimple (1963) Strimple (1967) Strimple (1970) Strimple (19732) Strimple (1973b) Strimple (19752) Strimple (1975b) Strimple, Frest, and Miller (1977) Ss Smmmplesaxdcbiorowitza( 59V suede Ld cO ATA, tm swmpleand Horowitz СЦ у. АШЕЛЬ. ONU Бре апа Мети: (1969)... „ен ава ШШЕ а Moore (1971). ыша A ee наза ита Moore (У 2 а) с ааа аа запар and Moore (19730) на о гу... tUe dee Dodo 48,49 шале ада Watkins (1969). аа Вы 36 Simples АТО у е ууз гае ERAN аа ION D ISummulecrmubxoadhbead;elo 815.02. И. ан RI 16,56,57 pendens (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) ........................ 56 superstes (Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897) ... 8 ...... 20,56,87 strimplei, Onychaster ................ i279 19–21,23,25,40,65,91 Strunk Construction Company Quarry [= Locality 3] .................. iot dioe с уки A Ficus Вин PED TORRE TERR ER 6120101833; 34,36–40,44–47,49,51–53,55,56,58–62,64–66,68,70,80–85,87–91 рисот Во) ео АИ Түү Жү ү түрс 19 ЭЛ ВИА Поља Тати аа е 17,61 ЖИРДА ото а АЙЛА. ЖИЛЕ, MIN ү] Superstes, ЈОНИ OGHENUS НИ УК ООЛ КУ ИР ЛАО, 56 ЗАПАЎ. ЛУ К О RICE Ө Cl ae, DM 8957 20,56,87 ШОЛ ТӨЗЕ) аео ОА DUIS TRAE 1 6,53-55 Suttonsandillaganstd989)8, ыу. Ў А 30,32,33,48 шор, апау аре ЮЭ у icon eed pce ДЕ 30,31,33 Sutton and Winkler (1940) ... 6,20,47—51 ИЛО УРЕН ЕК AES зеенин акене o CRAP NO SE а. 21 АИ СЛОМИ БА ASSERTION Talarocrinus Wachsmuth and Springer, 1881 decornis Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897 ...................... Tar Springs оао АВНЕ Y a сс кернеуш ене ле асое еа. ИЕЫ АКЕ 9 алсу олен О е а КЫА УТ АКС СҮЗ ү nor Taxocrinus Philipsin Morris- 194 sent ИИ ROLL 16,52,64 сезона) с Е. 2 DE а Oe ELC OUI CSC im АО) о. huntsvillae Springer, 1920 shumardianus (Hall, 1858) wetherbyi Miller and Gurley, 1895 .................................. 52 whitfieldi (Hall, 1858) Lemesos See ath. рая Tholocrinus Kirk, 1939 armiger (Маек апа Worthen, 1870)01981.. 319 адна 34 ЛУСИ СУ trimmer ЛЮ гене ВЕЕ TO DDR d ОХ ШИ SUIT CES Oth шрны. а аа аа Кай spinosus (Wood, 1909)................ unionensis Strimple, 1975b wetherbyi (Wachsmuth and Springer) ............................... 34 DAO HMDS о на TAURO ао аА 5 И Кој оте Уа рае БОРА ПН Ва та На уруы аташарын 5 trapeziatus, Zeacrinites Troost (1835) Troost (1849) Troost (1850) Troost in Hall (1858) ........... tulipaeformis, Pentremites tulipaformis, Pentremites ....... АВ ТОТОШ E E мулла ИТИ GeolopicaliSuiviey аа, Н МКД IUS 7 Geological Survey – Kentucky Geological Survey joint geologic mapping program Wi SwEIIghyvayr2 dus oett ron Wc а а алата Reo aet RI M ТМ: Wh Sve BW aye A DAtra алдыларын НИЕ ТАВЫ Ubaghs (1953) Ubaghs (1978) Wiss: U.S. MISSISSIPPIAN ECHINODERMS: CHESNUT AND ETTENSOHN 101 UC: Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. ........ MEE е 5,6,42,43,82 UI-X: Geology Department, University of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana; Urbana; Шу U.S ASTETE ИИ IT равая 6,44 UK: Geology Department, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, VU SAN А а 5,6,25,33-41,44—47,49—62,64—66,68,80—91 іСі te e ОООО О E на 19 ТОТУЕВ ВЕ EE EE ш а пр ыс 19 TOUTE CESS ON ОТИ аа TE ана он ыссы 19 Ulrich (1905) 6,7,20,59,60 ООО) Е ete abi Un DE CM e cA M ООЫ 6,58-60 Ulrichidiscus Bassler, 1935 16,24,60,61 pulaskiensis (Miller and Gurley, 1894) ....... ЛО 20,61,89 unidentifiable asterozoan genus and species ...... ОЛА 19,20, 26,68,91 unidentifiable ophiuroid genus and species ....... ПРАВА 17–20, 65,91 HHIONOASISS ТАЛОО ЊУ mare tine aes EO E UD ES 34 Umted States, вас сей л еза э eee contac nese nausea BUY 14 University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Urbana, IL ........ S PUPPET Сеара c eS сисао MEN UR VER ES DOG YES urii, AT GRACOGCIC UNIS: