16 Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
species. But the specimen from Repten that Eck himself described as Entrochus 
silesiacus seems to have differed in important respects from those described above. 
In a length of 22 mm. were included 23 columnals, which rapidly decreased in 
diameter from 7 mm. to 4mm.; the joint-face at the wider end agreed with the type, 
but that at the narrower end showed a clear pentapetalous pattern. Moreover 7 of 
the columnals were nodals, each bearing 5 or fewer cirri, alternating in orientation 
with the petaloid areas. The joint-faces of the cirri were radiately striate. 
Somewhat similar forms to these last were described by E. W. Benecke in 
18681 as occurring at Recoaro, and were by him identified with both Enucrinus? 
vadiatus and Entrochus silesiacus, the latter name having the preference. While 
the cirrus-facets appear to agree with Ecx’s description, the pattern on the joint-face 
has not a true pentapetalon in the centre, but rather 5 radial ridge-groups, the 
elements of which are placed gable-wise, and abut on, without merging into, the 
peripheral ridges. 
In «Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands» (IV, p. 479; 1875) Quensrepr carefully 
distinguished these and other forms from the true E. silesiacus; but in a later paper 
containing a valuable summary of the Muschelkalk Encrini,® Ecx still includes all 
these forms under Entrochus silesiacus. 
I have been kindly permitted to study at Titbingen the material on which, 
presumably, QuensteptT based his decision, and to bring home a few columnals for 
more detailed examination. I thoroughly agree with Quensrepr (1875). In the 
Beuthen material I find the true Entrochus silesiacus as above described (Brit. Mus. 
E 7116), columnals indistinguishable from those of Encrinus liliiformis (E 7117), 
columnals of an Jsocrinus (E 7114), of which some are nodals with well-developed 
cirrus-facets (E 7118), and columnals more like those of Balanocrinus, with long 
peripheral crenellae or striae and with small, less regularly developed cirrus-facets 
on the nodals (E 7115). In material from the Muschelkalk of Montecchio Maggiore, 
Recoaro, I find columnals of the same species of Zsocrinus and the same apparent 
Balanocrinus. The latter is undoubtedly the Hucrinus ? radiatus of ScHaurotn, 
and must stand as a valid species, Balanocrinus radiatus, perfectly distinct from 
Entrochus silesiacus, which is probably an Encrinus, and hitherto has not been 
recorded from Recoaro. : 
So far as the distinctness of these two species is concerned, this view appears 
to be that adopted by Koken in his careful description of Entrochus rotiformis from 
China;* but I do not agree with his remark that «Das Auftreten von Ansatzflachen 
fiir Cirrhen... ist kein ausschlaggebendes Merkmal, sie von Eucrinus zu trennen». 
Material from Bakony. — This matter has been discussed at some 
length because it is to the original type of Eutrochus silesiacus, and not to the 
cirriferous species, that | would refer a stem-fragment from Alsdédérgicse, Hangyas- 
erd6, embedded in a white, highly crystalline limestone (figs. 24, 25). The study 
of the fragment is rendered difficult by the intense secondary calcification, which 
has obscured the structure and made the whole so brittle that the joint-faces 
cannot be properly exposed. 
! «Ueber einige Muschelkalk-Ablagerungen». Geogn.-Palacont. Beitr. II, (1), p. 41, pl. IV. fig. 12. 
* Zeitschr, deutsch, geol. Ges., XXXIX, p. 558; 1887. 
* Neues Jahrb, ftir Min. 1900, I, p, 212, pl. X. figs. 16—25. 
