Lower Palceozoic Crinoids of Bohemia. 103 



doubtful Tchthyocrinus and a few undetermined fragments; 

 G and H are barren of crinoids, except for rare fragments in 

 gl, g2, and hi. From this it is clear that the crinoids of 

 Bohemia could not be made by anyone to throw much light 

 on the general evolution of crinoids or on the succession of 

 faunas in the Bohemian basin. 



The next obstacle with which the authors have had to 

 contend is^'pie'te' pour la me" moire de Barrande." This praise- 

 worthy sentiment has caused them to follow with marvellous 

 success the monumental style of the great ' Systeme Silurien ' 

 and the arrangement which necessitates numerous chapters 

 after the model of the notorious one on Snakes in Iceland. If 

 is no doubt the same piety that has induced them to publish 

 25 plates by a pitiable person called Langhans. Concerning 

 these plates the authors themselves write : " most of the 

 drawings are more or less defective . . . many are so ill 

 executed that they give not the faintest idea of the original ; 

 &c. &c." Worse than this, the majority of the specimens 

 misrepresented on these plates are themselves obscure frag- 

 ments, to which Barrande, doubtless for his own convenience 

 had casually attached manuscript names " au point de vue 

 scientifique .... nullement justifies." And yet " respect 

 for his memory " is supposed to be shown by the retention 

 and publication of all these provisional names. It is useless 

 for the authors to say, as they do on p. 139 : " nous deelinons 

 toute responsibilite" sur la question de leur admissibility. " 

 Here, unfortunately, are the names, and they have to be 

 reckoned with. As our knowledge of the Bohemian crinoids 

 increases, what dissensions will there not be among sys- 

 tematists as to the value of these names! What hideous 

 confusion, wrangling, and waste of time ! For all of it those 

 who have published the names will be responsible. 



In this article the drawings by Langhans will be ignored; 

 difficulties enough will confront us in reconciling the artistic 

 representations by Swoboda with the outlines thoughtfully 

 annexed on the thin covering-papers and with the diagrams in 

 the text. For example, the first question that arises is as to 

 the position of the small basal in Beyrichocrlnus. Plate 59 

 Hg. 4 shows no basal smaller than the two others; the 

 covering outline places it in the left posterior interradius ; the 

 diagram on p. 12 (our Fig. 1) shows it in the left anterior inter- 

 radius ; fig. 1, on p. 13, has it in a position that is different 

 but not move precisely determinable. A point of equal 

 importance, especially considering the authors' doubt as to 

 the monocyclic nature of this same base, is the orientation of 

 the lobes of the axial canal as seen in the base of the cup. 



