Echinoid Radioles, Cidaris similis et Waechteri. : 191 
of which one (PI. XII, fig. 346) retains the base. From bed g of the same section 
comes another fragment; and a small, short shaft is labelled bed e. 
These fragments are so imperfect that it is impossible to estimate the length 
of the radioles. The thickest fragment has diameters 2°4 and 1:9 mm.; the 
thinnest has diameters 1°4 and 1°3mm. The most compressed fragment, that from 
bed g of Section VI, has diameters 2°15 and 1°4 mm. 
The short shaft from Section VI, bed e, is 3°6 mm. long, has a proximal 
diameter of 1 mm., and a distal one of 1°6, whence it is rapidly rounded off. It 
may be an adapical radiole of this species. 
Neither in their measurements nor in other respects do the larger fragments 
from Bakony differ appreciably from specimens found at the type-locality. Never- 
theless I must admit that had they come from a Raiblian horizon I should not have 
known how to distinguish them from Cidaris parastadifera. This implies, not that 
the latter species is a synonym of C. similis, but that it can only be distinguished 
from it when the specimens are well preserved and especially when the deter- 
mination can be checked by examination of the micro-structure. 
«Cidaris» Waechteri. 
(Plate XII, figs. 347—351, and Plate XV, fig. 443.) 
1841. Cidaris Waechteri H. L. WIssMANN in MUnster: Beitr. z. Petrefactenk. IV, p. 48, pl. v, f. 22. 
(non H. L. WissMANN MS. quoted by Munster as syn. of C. alata, op. cit. p. 47.) 
1841. Cidaris catenifera AG., MtinsTER: Beitr. z. Petrefactenk. IV, p, 45, p. iii, f. 23, a, b. (non L. 
J. R. AGassiz, 1840: «Ech. foss. Suisse», Mem. Soc. Helvet. IV, p. 79, pl. xxi a, f. 23.) 
1843. ? Cidaris spinulosa’ A, v. KLipsrEIN: Geol. Ostlich. Alpen. p. 271, pl. xviii, f. 10. d, e. (non 
i; 10,6, f°): 
1846. Cidaris Waechteri Wissm. in Mtnsr., Acassiz & Desor: «Catal. raisonn. Ech.» Ann. Sci. Nat. 
(3), Zool. VI, p. 331, also separate issue 1847, p. 27. 
1846. Cidaris Braunii E. Desor in AGassiz & Dresor: «Catal. raisonn. Ech.», Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), 
Zool. VI, p. 385, also separate issue 1847, p. 31 (based on C. catenifera MUNsT. non AG., 
and includes var. C. baculifera MUwst.) {this last excluded in 1855, v. infra}. 
1855. Cidaris Waechteri WissmM. in MUnst.; E. Desor: Synops. Ech. foss., p. 22, pl. ii, f. 27. 
1855. Cidaris Braunit Desor, E. Desor: Synops. Ech. foss., p. 21, pl. ii, f. 33. (C. baculifera MUNsr. 
here becomes a new species, C. similis). 
1855, Cidaris Braunii Desor, J. KOECHLIN-SCHLUMBERGER: Bull. Soc. Geol. France (2), XII, p. 1060 
(includes C. baculifera Mtwsr. et catenifera MUNST.). 
1 Cidaris spinulosa KLipsTEIN (1848, p. 271, pl. xviii, f. 10 a—f) was based on three radioles, 
said to come from the Cassian beds of St. Cassian, and now in the British Museum, namely E 4602, 
f. 10 a, b,c; E 4603, f. 10 d,e; E 4604, f. 10 f. The name was changed by A. D'OrBIGNY 
(1849. Prodr. Pal. Stratigr., I, p. 205) to C. subspinulosa, because AGAssiz had diagnosed a C. spinu- 
losa in 1846 (in AGassiz & Desor, Catal. raisonn. p. 330). This was no good reason, but since the 
name Cidarites spinulosus was used in 1835 by F. A. ROEMER (Norddeutsch. Kreidegeb. p. 26), 
D’ORBIGNY’s action was legitimate. Neither KLIPSTEIN nor D’ORBIGNY selected a holotype. DESOoR 
(1855, Synops. Ech. Foss. p. 21, pl. ii. f. 15), ignoring p’OrBIGNY, changed the name to C. perplexa 
and reproduced KLIpsTEIN’s f. 10 a, b. Specimen E 4602 (Plate XII, figs. 344, 345) may therefore be 
regarded as the holotype of C. perplexa. To save future confusion, I make the same specimen lecto- 
type of C. spinulosa Kuipst. and of C. subspinulosa. Thus the three names become absolutely syno- 
nymous, and if any one of them is to be used it must be C. subspinulosa. 
..On the evidence of KiipsTeIn’s figures and description the lectotype of C. subspinulosa has 
been referred by LAuBE (1865, p. 289) and by BroiLt (1904, p. 157) to C. semicostata. Examination 
