8 Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
A minor consequence of taking 1816 as the date of LamMarck’s name has been 
the occasional rejection of E. liliiformis Lam. in favour of E. fossilis BLuMENBACH 
(e. g. QuenstepT loc. cit. and JarKeL). BLUMENBACH was, it is true, the first post- 
Linnean writer to give to this species of Eucrinus a specific name accompanied by 
description and figures (1802); but Lamarck (1801) bases his species on the figures 
given by J. Exuis «Essay Nat. Hist. Corallines etc.» 1755, pl. XXXVII, fig. K, and by 
G. W. Knorr «Samml. Merkwiirdigkeiten etc.» 1755, pl. XI a. Entuis’s figure, though 
quoted by more than one of his immediate successors, is nothing more than a reversed 
copy of M. R. Rosinus «Tentaminis de lithozois ac lithophytis . .. prodromus» 1719, 
Tab. I, fig. 1, at top left hand of plate. The preference therefore should be given to 
the splendid specimen of the same species figured by Knorr. The history of this 
specimen has always been to some extent wrapped in mystery. Knorr, in the expla- 
nation to the plate, said that it belonged to a merchant in Halle; J. E I. Watcu 
(op. cit. II, ii, p. 100; 1769), said that its owner was H. Lance, professor of mathe- 
matics in that town; but neither knew what had become of the fossil on the death 
of its owner. The question was pointedly raised by J. Beckmann in a review of 
Knorr and Watcn’s work (Phys.-Okon. Bibliothek. I, p. 68, footnote; 1770), and 
Watcu made enquiries which resulted in two distinct stories being told, one by 
C. F. Witcxens (Naturforscher, III, p. 209; 1774), the other by G. A. GrinpLer of 
Halle (op. cit. VI, p. 179; 1775). Both tales are mentioned by J. S. Miter (<Nat. 
Hist. Crinoidea», p. 44; 1821), and Quensrepr adopts the locality «Schraplau zwi- 
schen Halle und Eisleben» as given by Witckens (see «Petrefactenk. Deutschlands», 
IV, p. 453; 1875). Since, however, it was GriwpLer who made the original drawing, 
his account, which is in other respects the more satisfactory, is the one to be 
followed. According to this, the specimen was bought for two Reichsthaler in Far- 
renstadt near Querfurth (not far from Schraplau) by a student named Virico, who 
gave it to his teacher, Prof Lance, While in the latter's collection it was seen by 
an apothecary of Niirnberg named Beyer, who gave GrtnpLer one louis-d’or to 
paint it, so that Knorr might publish an engraving of it. Lance afterwards sold the 
specimen for 3 louis-d’or to Herr von GArTENBERG, and GRrUiNDLER believed that it 
came into the Dresden Cabinet. J. S. Miter (loc. cit.) thought that he had seen 
the specimen about the year 1800 «in the collection of the Naturforschenden Gesell- 
schaft at Dantzic» ; but Professor H. Conwentz, who kindly made a special search 
at my request, reports that the specimen is not in the Provincial Museum at Dantzic, 
though the collections of the Naturforschenden Gesellschaft have been incorporated 
in the Museum. Probably it went to Dresden, and was lost in the fire which des- 
troyed so many other specimens. I have sought it there without success. The 
specimens figured by Scnutze also (pl. I, figs 4, 5) were said by him to be in the 
Kgl. Naturaliensammlung of Dresden, and they likewise are not to be found. But 
there is no doubt as to the identity of all these specimens with Z. liliiformis Lam., 
which, therefore, is the name to be given to the genotype. 
The Stem of Encrinus is the only part of the animal with which the present 
work is concerned. It is circular in section as a rule, but subpentagonal and even 
pentagonal columnals may occur in it; the external surface is unornamented; it 
bears no cirri; the lumen is relatively small, circular, or pentagonal with angles 
apparently radial or interradial; the joint-surfaces vary greatly even in different parts 
of the stem of a single individual, but agree in having ridges radiating from the 
