170 Py em Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
interambulacrals, covered the ambulacra as well as the interambulacra. Thus each 
radiole would tend to be wider on its adambulacral side, especially as the tubercles 
were -not ‘shifted towards the adradial margin in any conspicuous degree. 
The Radioli paletiformes were erected above the apical region, where they 
protected the various orifices. Clearly their edges were in close contact, and the 
irregularity of their outline is due to the change required in filling up a roughly 
circular space with five series or double series of blades. Since these radioles are 
obvious modifications of the primary interambulacral radioles, it is improbable that 
any were borne by the plates of the apical system. 
It is natural to suppose that the testudo of radioles served to protect, not 
merely the orifices and the podia, but also the developing young. 
The testudo was more highly developed and more closely fitting in A. testudo 
than in A. Buchi. 
The comparisons with Colobocentrotus atratus and Goniocidaris clypeatus should 
not be pushed too far. In Colobocentrotus the whole body of the radiole is thick- 
ened and it is the truncate ends that form the pavement. In Goniocidaris the 
shield formed by some of the radioles is a mere expansion of their ends; it is not 
derived from a previous widening of the shaft to form a blade. Therefore, as 
DoEDERLEIN justly says (1887, p. 15), Anaulocidaris and Goniocidaris clypeata «are 
extreme end-forms of two totally distinct evolutionary series, which have attained 
an outward similarity in this respect». In G. clypeata, however, a testudo can 
scarcely be said to exist, so that there is room for much further development in 
that direction. 
«Cidaris» alata. 
1840. Cidaris (?) alata L. J. R. AGassiz: Cat. syst. ectyp. Ech. Mus. Neoc., p. 10, Numeri X. 7, 8, 
14, 23, 11, 22, 26. 
1840. Cidaris alata L. J R. AGasstz: ‘Descr. Echinod. foss. dela Suisse’. Nouv. Mém. Soc. Helvet. IV, 
p. 74, 105, pl. xxia, f. 5, a, b. 
1841. Cidaris alata AG., MUNSTER: Beitr. z. Petrefactenk. IV, p. 47, pl. iv, f. 2, a—g; said to include 
C. Waechteri WissMaNnn MS. 
1841. Cidaris semicostata MUNSTER: Beitr. z. Petrefactenk. IV, p. 45, pl. iii, f. 20 a, d. 
1846. Cidaris alata AG. (pars), AGAsSIz & Desor: ‘Catal. raisonn. Ech.’ Ann, Sci. Nat. (3) Zool. VI, 
p. 331; and 1847, separate issue, p. 27. 
1849. [1850.] Cidaris subalata A. C. D, p’ORBIGNY: Prodr. Pal. stratigr. I, p. 205. 
1855. Cidaris alata AG., E. Desor, Mars: Synops. Ech. Foss., p. 19, pl. ii, f. 55 
1855. Cidaris semicostata MUNstT., E. Desor: Synops. Ech. Foss., p. 20, pl. ii, f. 18. 
1865. Cidaris alata Ac. (pars), G. C. Lauspe: Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Nat. Cl. XXIV, 
Abth. 2, p. 286, pl. viii b, f. 8. 
1865. Cidaris semicostata Mtnsv. (pars), G. C. Laue: Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Nat. | Cl. 
XXIV, Abth. 2, p. 289, pl. x, f. 3. 
1875. Radiolus alatus AG, cf. alatus, et var. cimiciformis A. QuensTEDYT: Petrefactenk. Deutschlands, 
pp. 200—202, pl. Ixviii, ff. 100—118. 
1900. Cidaris alata Ac., E. K Hesse: N. Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Bd. XIII, p. 230. 
1900. Cidaris semicostata MUNsv. (pars), E. K. Hesse: N. Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Bd. XII, p. 231. 
1904. Cidaris alata AG. (?), F. Broitt: ‘Pachycardientuffe d. Seiser Alp.’, Palaeontogr. L, p. 155, pl. 
xvii, f. 52—54. 
1904. Cidaris semicosiata MGNST (pars), F. BROILI: op. cit. p. 157, pl. xvii, f. 37—41. 
Cidaris alata is here distinguished from the following species, which have 
been referred to it, or to its synonym C. semicostala, by various authors: 
