Stratigraphical and Faunistic Results. 243 
have proved to be inexact in some cases, and may be so in all. The characteristic 
Encrinus of Cserhat, E cancellistriatus, is a new species, unknown out of Bakony. 
Can it possibly be the same as certain columnals from the “Mergellage aus dem 
Scharizkehlthale bei Berchtesgaden”, probably of Cassian age, which Gimpet (1861, 
p. 220) called “Encrinus radiatus v. SCHAUR., var. verrucosus”’, and said they were 
“dadurch ausgezeichnet, dass die Oberflache fein gekGrnelt ist’? I make the sugges- 
tion on the supposition that by “Oberflache’’ GtmpeL meant the joint-face, and 
that his specimens belonged to Eucrinus, though not to HE. radiatus Scnavr., 
which, as stated on p. 16, is a Balanocrinus. 
Comparison of the Pentacrinidae shows even more remarkable dissimilarity 
between the Cassian and Cserhat faunas. Of three species of Jsocrinus and two 
of Balanocrinus found at St. Cassian, not one occurs in the Cserhat group, while 
the three species of [socrinus characteristic of that group, J. candelabrum, I. scipio, 
and the abundant J. sceptrum, are unknown elsewhere. Jsocrinus propinguus has 
been recorded from so many localities, that its absence from Bakony may seem 
surprising ; but the records, where I have been able to check them, have proved 
incorrect (see pp. 31, 54). The really interesting point is that, although descendants 
of Isocrinus tyrolensis and I. propinquus (the latter in the form of I. Hercuniae) 
are found in the Jeruzsdlemhegy group, still neither of these species is represented 
(unless by one or two very doubtful fragments) in the Cserhat group. 
The inference I have drawn is that the Cassian Pentacrinids did not find their 
way into Bakony till Raiblian times, and thus arose this excellent example of homo- 
taxis, the Cassian species of St. Cassian being more like the Raiblian species of 
Bakony than like their actual contemporaries. 
Besides Isocrinus Hercuniae, I. tyrolensis major with its varieties, and a 
single doubtful columnal of J. candelabrum, the Jeruzsalemhegy group contains no 
other Crinoids. The Encrinidae, which so short a time before were numerous in 
species, and so rich in individuals as to build up masses of rock from their remains, 
are now not represented by a single columnal. 
From the Pachycardientuffe of the Seiser Alp, Brom: (1904) has recorded 
E. cassianus, E. granulosus, and E. varians. From the Cardita Oolith of the N. 
Tyrol and Bavarian Alps, Wourmann (1889) has recorded Trawmatocrinus caudex 
and a species already discussed under Encrinus granulosus. These are the stragg- 
lers of the great host of Triassic Encrinidae, the last of their race. In the Jeruzsalem- 
hegy group not one of them is found. The conditions that permitted the migration 
of Pentacrinids from the Tyrol into Bakony were, apparently, not so favourable to 
Encrinids. The various species of Eucrinus were, so far as we know, firmly rooted 
to the sea-floor by a spreading base; the Pentacrinidae, on the other hand, attach 
themselves by their cirri, and, either loosing their hold or breaking across the stem 
at a syzygy, may move during adult life to another spot. They have further 
advantages over the Encrinidae in the greater development of their subvective 
system by the repeated branching of the arms, and in their capacity for reaching higher 
and therefore richer sources of food through their longer and more highly developed 
stems. We cannot follow all the variations of current and food-supply in these 
Triassic seas; but we have reason to believe that the food-supply was in places 
or at times diminished, for we see the result of it in stunted faunas. When such 
unfavourable conditions supervened, it is easy to understand why the Pentacrinidae 
16* 
