Lower Palceozoic Crinoids of Bohemia. 1 19 



could be traced in specimens that have the arms better 

 preserved . 



It is curious that, in describing some undetermined tegmina 

 which may possibly belong to Scyphocrinus, the authors 

 should twice observe that they are unable to see " l'ouverture 

 buccale sur le fragment," especially as they most definitely 

 refer these specimens to the Camerata of Wachsmuth and 

 Springer or the equivalent Hypascocrina of Neumayr, 

 which are characterized by the total absence of a mouth- 

 opening. Possibly these remarkable sentences are due to the 

 translator. 



Of all the specimens of Scyphocrinus only four retain any 

 of the stem, and in the most perfect of these it consists of: but 

 7 columnals. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that the 

 stem often attained a length of many metres. Various roots 

 are associated with the remains of Scyphocrinus, but the 

 authors do not feel justified in referring any one of these to 

 the genus. Some of these roots sprang from the curious 

 hollow and chambered spheroids known as Loboliths. But 

 if these cautious palgeontologists ever intend to hint that those 

 bodies may be a part of Scyphocrinus, they have reserved 

 their remarks for a future volume on roots. 



Kealizing the futility of discussing, on the evidence of 

 professedly incorrect figures, those remains which the authors 

 themselves decline to determine, we may summarize in a table 

 (p. 120) what this analysis has brought out concerning the 

 Palasozoic crinoid fauna of Bohemia. 



It is probable that all the species are new, but they should 

 be compared afresh with known species of the genera to which 

 they are here referred. The genera, however, are not so 

 strange as they seemed at first. Bohemicocnnus and Caleido- 

 crinus may be accepted without hesitation ; Beyrichocrinus 

 and Laubeocrinus are open to slight question. But if half of 

 the genera are new, even that is a large proportion ; and since 

 the authors believe that all records of Scyphocrinus outside 

 Bohemia are insufficiently supported, five out of the eight 

 genera may possibly be peculiar to that province. 



The authors have nowhere ventured to arrange their genera 

 in systematic order. The attempt here made, if near the truth, 

 is rather startling. The extraordinarily large proportion of 

 JMonocyclica and the truly remarkable absence of Inadunata 

 afford much food for reflection. But considering the rarity of 

 crinoid-bearing beds in Bohemia, perhaps one should not lay 

 great stress on negative evidence. Some of the doubtful 

 remains are of rather Inadunate appearance. The absence of 

 Monocyclic Adunata is less noteworthy, since this order did 



