228 Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
assigned to two undoubted species, for which are retained Monster’s names C. 
flexuosa and C. linearis, and one doubtful species C. Meyeri Kurrst., possibly a 
synonym of C. linearis. 
It is, however, necessary to allude also to C. biformis Mbwnst., a species based 
on a few fragments. The proximal striated portion is obviously the collerette; in 
other words the radioles have a very long collerette, a fact suggesting that they 
are not fully grown. The small fragment of the distal portion, or shaft, suggests 
affinity or identity with such a form as C. similis, while the collerette, taken by 
itself, might be mistaken for C. linearis. «So, dass», as MUNSTER says, <einzelne 
Bruchstiicke zu zwei verschiedenen Arten zu gehdren scheinen». It seems to me, 
however, that C. biformis is merely the young of some other species, and that, 
in their attempts to recognise it, subsequent authors have referred to it fragments 
of the two species just mentioned. Thus of the three radioles associated with 
KurpstEm’s label «No. 636, C. biformis», one [E 4683] is undoubtedly C. linearis, 
another [E 4684] appears to be C. similis, and the third [36485] reminds one most 
of Kurstew’s own C. Meyeri. In this last specimen the base is rounded, approach- 
ing a hemisphere, with the acetabular margin raised in a ring which may have 
been crenelate, but is obscured by weathering; the smooth annulus is followed 
by a very low collerette, distinctly separated from the shaft and marked with fine 
longitudinal striae; the shaft, which is polished, perhaps by wear, is circular in 
section, and increases slightly in thickness before beginning to taper. The low, 
deeply sunk collerette proves that the specimen is not C. biformis, and it is curious 
that the same appearance should be so marked in Lausr’s figures 9a and 9b 
(Taf. x), especially as it cannot be distinguished in the specimens labelled as the 
originals of those figures. The axial hollow seen in the original of Lause’s fig. 90 
is strong evidence for that specimen being C. linearis. The original of his fig. 9a, 
which is 7°6 mm. long and 2°1 mm. thick in the widest part, probably belongs to 
the same species. Another specimen in the collection of the Austrian Geological 
Survey, labelled C. biformis by Lauper, but not figured, has a distinct short col- 
lerette, only 2°5 mm. long, with a diameter of 2°4 mm., and thus does not agree 
with the diagnosis. The original of Lausg’s fig. 9c and 9d does not resemble 
Munster’s figure, and although the fine tubercles in its distal portion may be held 
to differentiate it from C. linearis, still, as the material to be described from the 
Bakony district proves, this is undoubtedly a possible variation of the linearis type. 
The conclusion as to C. biformis therefore is that the species is invalid, having 
been based on an immature radiole, probably of C. similis or C. Wissmanni, 
and that the specimens subsequently referred to it belong either to those species 
or to C. linearis. 
Among Raiblian radioles hitherto described the only one that seems connected 
with this group is the holotype of Cidaris Schwageri Wourmann (1889, p. 194, 
pl. v, f. 16) from the Cardita-Oolith of Rammelsbach near Seehaus, and now in the 
Palaeontological Museum, Munich. Having been very kindly entrusted with this for 
study, I take the opportunity of giving an enlarged drawing (Pl. XIll, fig. 417) as well 
as a further enlargement of the ornament (fig. 418). This consists of longitudinal 
striae (or fine ridges), separated by deep narrow grooves, and with rounded edges 
obscurely divided by unequally spaced transverse depressions. In the proximal, 
stouter, region of the radiole, these ridges run about 14 to 1 mm.; nearer the 
