6 Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
Dadocrinus, Isocrinus,) Balanocrinus, and Millericrinus (?). Other genera were 
probably represented in Triassic seas, but we are still ignorant of the forms that 
we may suppose to have linked the Palaeozoic Monocyclica to the Plicatocrinidae 
and Hyocrinidae, and we look in vain for ancestors of the Bourgueticrinidae and 
Eugeniacrinidae. The Apiocrinidae also one would expect to have been represented 
by more species than the doubtful Millericrinus recubariensis (Crema), which, Pro- 
fessor von KoENEN suggests to me, may be only a young Dadocrinus. 
Now this list of probable or possible genera renders it quite impossible for 
one to refer all Triassic Trochitae to Encrinus, or all Asteriae to Pentacrinus 
(i. e. Isocrinus). The Asteriae, it is true, being more specialised, can generally be 
assigned to one or other of the known genera of Pentacrininae, especially when 
they are associated with cirriferous nodals. Nevertheless, in these early representatives 
of the Pentacrinidae, the differentiation is not so great as in later forms, and it is 
hard to say of some specimens whether they are Jsocrinus, Balanocrinus, or Holo- 
crinus (see R. Wacner® 1886, «Encriniten des unteren Wellenkalkes»; pl. i., figs 
2—6); while isolated columnals of Dadocrinus may be either Trochitae or Asteriae 
(see H. Kuniscu® 1883, «Ausgewachsener Zustand von E. gracilis»; pl. VIII, figs 
6, a—e). 
If one acts on the principle that all Triassic Trochitae should be referred to 
Encrinus until the contrary be proved, there remains the difficulty of assigning them 
to species. If the recognised species of Muschelkalk Eucrinus have been rightly 
separated, then we meet here with distinct species having the same stem-characters. 
The case is different with the species from the Cassianer-Schichten. Here there is 
in practice very little difficulty in referring the scattered columnals to what appear 
to be the three well-defined species Eucrinus cassianus, E. varians, and E. gra- 
nulosus, while these again are readily distinguished from the Muschelkalk form 
E. liliiformis. It is true that columnals occasionally present themselves which 
cannot readily be assigned to one of these species; but this difficulty may be due 
either to their ill-preservation, or to their incomplete development as young or freshly 
forming surfaces; or it may be that there actually are among the St. Cassian fossils 
certain species as yet unrecognised. My point is that the bulk of the specimens can 
be sorted out pretty easily. 
The same is the case with the Entrochi and Trochitae of Veszprém. While there 
are a few doubtful forms, the majority are capable of classification. Moreover, there 
is here a repetition of the types of structure that characterise some of the St.-Cassian 
species, with, however, the quite obvious distinction that the Veszprém specimens are 
both absolutely smaller and relatively of more delicate ornament. There is, of course, 
no direct evidence that these columnals belong to Excrinus; but this parallelism to 
well-known species encourages one to refer them to that genus and to give them 
independent names. 
I propose therefore to give the usual generic names to all columnals that can 
with good reason be referred to existing genera. But there remain specimens of 
1 To this genus I refer most of the Triassic species hitherto known as Pentacrinus. See 
further, pp. 22 and 30. 
* Complete references to these and all other authors quoted are given in the «List of 
Papers and Works referred to», pp. 265—274. 
