106 



Mr. F. A. Bather on the 



proximal rests, though by a very short side, on the base, 

 while it supports 3 plates above ; the intersecundibrachs are 

 at least 2, but are small and obscure; the existence of inter- 

 tertibrachs is doubtful. The authors profess not to know 

 whether the base was monocyclic or dicyclic. But, since no 

 camerate crinoid has yet been described in which infrabasals 

 are associated with fused basals, we are justified in placing 

 Beyrichocrinus among Monocyclica Camerata. Therein it 

 falls apparently into the Suborder Batocrinoidea, and the 

 family Periechocrinidas, although we do not know whether 

 it possessed the biserial free arms characteristic of the latter. 

 Many obscure genera have been referred to this family, 

 mostly as supposed synonyms of Periechocrinus. Whether 

 Beyrichocrinus may be identical with any of these, is a 

 question for the future. Tt appears allied to Periechocrinus, 

 but the cup is rounded as in Megistocrinus ; its most dis- 

 tinctive characters are the wedge shape of the proximal anal, 

 and the absence of a distinct median vertical row of anals. 



Bohemicocrinus (why not Bohemia- in us?) is established 

 for two imperfect cups, both assigned to one new species, 

 B. pulvereus. The trivial name, taken from a manuscript 



\V-iHBr 



Fig - . 2. — Analysis of the cup of Bohemicocrinus pulvereus, outlines copied 

 from Waagen and Jnhn, a little over nat. size. Shading as in 

 fig - . 1. The small plates at the angles of some of the inter- 

 brachials are described by the authors as accessory plates ; they 

 do not occur in the only other specimen known. 



label by Barrande, is consistently spelled pulverens — a mani- 

 fest misprint of familiar nature. One specimen comes from 

 the white limestone, e2 of Kosof, the other from black 

 limestone transitional between e 1 and e 2, near Dvorce. The 



