Revision of the pentacrinid stalked crinoids of the genus Endoxocrinus (Echinodermata, Crinoidea), with a study of environmental control of characters and its consequences for taxonomy Author David, Jerome Author Roux, Michel Author Messing, Charles G. Author Ameziane, Nadia text Zootaxa 2006 1156 1 50 journal article 50584 10.5281/zenodo.172265 20ced0ab-42ec-4de6-bab0-b3da6529bae9 1175­5326 172265 Subgenus Endoxocrinus A.H. Clark, 1908 Type species of the subgenus: Encrinus parrae Gervais (in Guerin, 1835). Synonymy: Endoxocrinus A.H. Clark, 1908b : 151 , and 1923: 10; Diplocrinus ( Endoxocrinus ) Roux, 1978 : A9 (unpublished data) and 1981: 481; Endoxocrinus ( Endoxocrinus ) David, 1998: 202 (unpublished data) and Roux et al., 2002 : 820. Diagnosis A subgenus of Endoxocrinus with IIBr series from 1 to 4 brachials, usually 2; IIIBr to VBr from 1 to 5 brachials, exceptionally up to 7; usually more frequently 3 than 2 in IIIBr, mainly 3 in IVBr and VBr; number of internodals per mature noditaxis 3 to 16; rarely a distal callus at end of stalk; number of cirrals per cirrus 25 to 43 (mode usually>30); proximal cirri perpendicular to stalk or oriented downward. Monospecific Endoxocrinus parrae [Gervais ( in Guérin, 1835)] sensu lato (= Pentacrinus mülleri Oersted, 1857 ; = Diplocrinus carolinae A.H. Clark, 1934 ; = Endoxocrinus prionodes H.L. Clark, 1941 ).

Occurrence
Western tropical Atlantic	from	the	northern	Bahamas	to	southern	Brazil,	at	depths
from 154 m to 832 m.

Remarks The original specimen of E. parrae is lost. It was originally briefly described and illustrated as “Palma animal” by Parra (1787) . Gervais ( in Guérin 1835, Pl. 147, fig.1) translated Parra’s description, reproduced his figure, and renamed it Encrinus parrae . A.H. Clark (1908a) considered it to be the same species as Pentacrinus mülleri , described by Oërsted (1857) and finely figured by Lütken (1865) . A.H. Clark (1908b) subsequently designated Encrinus parrae as the type species of the genus Endoxocrinus . However, Roux (1978, 1981) and David (1998) thought that Parra’s specimen was too poorly described and figured to identify it with Oërsted’s P. m ü l l e r i . So, Roux (1978, 1981) gave priority to the genus Diplocrinus ( Döderlein 1912 ) , treating it sensu lato to include Endoxocrinus , Diplocrinus and Annacrinus sensu Clark (1923) . David (1998) considered parrae as invalid and designated Pentacrinus mülleri Oërsted as the new type species of the genus Endoxocrinus , an arrangement followed by Roux et al. (2002) . However, the strongly endotomous arm branching of Oërsted’s specimen was not conspicuous in Parra’s specimen, which may have been morphologically intermediate between mülleri and prionodes ; both of which occur in the type locality off Cuba . In the face of this confusion, and in order to maintain the species name parrae , which has seen broad use in modern ecological and taphonomic studies (e.g., Meyer et al. 1978; Messing 1985 , 1994a ; Messing and Llewellyn 1991 ; Llewellyn and Messing 1993 ; Oji 1996 ; Baumiller and Rome 1998 ; Featherstone et al. 1998 ), we here designate Oërsted’s specimen of Pentacrinus mülleri as the neotype of E. parrae . Consequently, mülleri becomes a junior objective synonym of parrae , and the genus Endoxocrinus remains valid.