﻿SCHUC] 



SILURIC AND DEV0N1C CYSTIDEA 259 



Later the writer sent Professor Jahn a collection of Camarocrinus, 

 to illustrate his own views as to the nature of these bodies. In repl) 

 was received the following comment, under date of April 3, [904: 

 " After having seen the Camarocrinits you sent me I am convinced 

 that Camarocrinus and Lobolithus are identical. 1 have never re- 

 garded Lobolithus as brood-sacks hut as brood-receptacles [his word 

 is Brutsbehalter] . Because 1 do not regard Lobolithus as the entire 

 animal hut as isolated skeletal parts, I prefer the older name Lobo- 

 lithus [older only as a nomen nudum]. This name in itself says 

 nothing (as Entrochus for columns) while Camarocrinus indicates 

 an independent genus of crinoids. By Lobolithus, therefore, 1 under- 

 stand, in part, crinoid-roots modified into brood-receptacles. In 

 other words, of morphological significance I regard the Loboliths 

 as bladder-like transformed crinoid roots, whose physiological sig- 

 nificance is not yet entirely clear as brood-receptacles, etc. That all 

 of these bodies do not belong to Scyphocrinus has always been clear 

 to me because Loboliths also occur in Bohemia in beds where no 

 Scyphocrinus has ever been found. That certain Loboliths belong to 

 Scyphocrinus is proven by the circumstance that I have observed at 

 Kuchclbad [the writer also saw one at this locality to which refer- 

 ence will be made later] on the exposed surfaces of the strata 

 Loboliths connected by long columns to Scyphocrinus calices. The 

 drawing of this I will publish. Of Scyphocrinus we know but few 

 with attached columns ; most of the columns occur isolated and these 

 may belong to other genera. The dimensions and the form of the 

 central canal in Scyphocrinus are variable. I know of Loboliths 

 that have as thick a column as Scyphocrinus. Which forms of Lobo- 

 liths belong to Scyphocrinus and which to other genera cannot of 

 course be determined. It is remarkable that Lobolithus is found 

 only in e 1^ and in e 2. In f 2 they have not yet been found and it 

 is therefore all the more remarkable that in America Camarocrinus 

 (= Lobolithus) is restricted to beds the equivalent to our etage F, 

 and also that Scyphocrinus has not yet been found in America." 



The idea that Camarocrinus physiologically represents brood-sacks 

 or brood-receptacles, first suggested by Haeckel and now provision- 

 ally accepted by Jahn, is so foreign to any known crinoid structure, 

 that it was submitted to Springer for further comment. Under date 

 of April 18, 1904, he writes: 



" These strange bodies have always been, and still are, a complete 

 puzzle to me. I can readily endorse the part of Jahn's statement 

 that they are ' bladder-like swellings of the roots of crinoids,' but I 

 have to halt at the ' brood-receptacles,' for I know nothing of them 



