HO Mr. F. A. Bather on the 



which are free from the secundaxil, may branch at least 

 twice more, i. e. up to quintibrachs, and are composed of low 

 uniserial brachials bearing closely set pinnules. Unfortu- 

 nately the authors attach so little importance to the mode of 

 arm-branching that they have passed over without comment 

 the very different appearances drawn by Mr. Swoboda in two 

 identical views of the single specimen. One gathers only 

 that the branching was not a regular dichotomy. It is also 

 regrettable that the relation of the pinnules to the brachials is 

 to be learned from neither description nor figures, the latter 

 being discrepant in this important point also. We are told 

 that immediately after each bifurcation the fine pinnules form 

 a solid pavement, but we are not told whether any of these 

 apparently united pinnules form part of the cup-wall; nor, 

 what is far more important, is it stated if more than one 

 pinnule is borne by each brachial. Whenever the whole base 

 is not exposed as in a diagram, Messrs. Waagen and Jahn 

 seem to think that they are absolved from any attempt to 

 relegate the specimen to its place in the system. Had they 

 likewise refrained from weighting such a specimen with a new 

 generic name, their avoidance of responsibility would have 

 been more readily excused. When, however, they go so far, 

 we may demand to have such details as it is obvious could 

 be learned from the specimen, without being forced " to wait 

 for more abundant material." The facts vouchsafed to us do, 

 all the same, permit some inference. The families of Di- 

 cyclica Camerata, as at present known, afford no place for 

 Vletavicrinus. Its reference to Monocyclica Camerata is 

 more than consistent with the small amount of base that is 

 visible. If placed in this Order, the relations of its proximal 

 anal prevent admission to the Melocrinoidea, while the 

 number of secundibrachs, if nothing else, keeps it out of 

 Actinocrinoidea. The disposition of the anals, though not 

 that typical of the Batocrinoidea, is not absolutely discordant 

 therewith, and it is in that Suborder that it seems to find its 

 nearest allies. If the brachials do bear more than one pinnule 

 apiece, if, in other words, they are compound structures, one 

 would place the genus near Carpocrinus. In any case it 

 might provisionally be placed in the Carpocrinidse. Our 

 conclusion, then, is similar to that reached in the case of 

 Bohemicocrinus, from the same horizon and locality ; and we 

 now remember that the anals of that genus have an arrange- 

 ment almost identical with that of the present specimen. 

 Comparison of the descriptions reveals many minor resem- 

 blances, so many, indeed, that one is impelled to ask why 



