In my process of studying and attempting to identify these specimens, I've noticed some interesting details. Some of these details are probably just that; interesting (to me anyway). Others seem like defining characteristics which might be helpful in the actual identification process.

Shortly after I showed the first of these crinoid specimens to Wayne Itano (a friend and fellow member of WIPS), he told me about a paper (which I then checked out from the library) from 1971 which has a very similarly looking crinoid in it. It was an article by Strimple and Miller in "Paper 56"; the November 24, 1971 edition of "the University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions" named "Fossil Crinoid Studies". Here's an example photo of a specimen from their paper.

Being the eager, naive amateur paleontologist that I am, lacking any other documentation that even came close to describing anything like these specimens, at first, since they do look quite similar at first glance and since I found them in the same formation as Strimple and Miller's A. Minuromulosus (from the paper mentioned above), I tentatively identified them as such (subclass Flexibilia, order Sagenocrinida, superfamily Sagenocrinitacea, family Dactylocrinidae, genus Aexitrophocrinus, species Minuramulosus).

However, after further investigation, due to certain key discrepancies between their description of A. Minuramulosus and my specimens, I'm starting to think they might be either A. formosus or some other species (possibly new) or even a different genus altogether.

Above are links to pages about the aspects I've just mentioned. There are also a couple of questions seeking clarification about the documentation I'm using in this identification process.