Loirer Palccozow Crinoida of Bohemia. lOv) 



<liiiil)ff'iil frhlhyocriiiHs and a tew undetcrniituMl fia.,'mi'tits ; 

 G ami H arc hanon of crinoids, except for rare fra;^m('iit.s in 

 gl, g2, and hi. Fniin this it is clear that the eriiioiiU of 

 l^dicniia could not he made by anyone to throw much lif^lit 

 on the general evolution of crinoids or on the succession of 

 faunas in the Bohemian basin. 



'I'he next obstacle with which the authors have had to 

 contend is^pictc pour la inetnoire de Barrande." This praise- 

 worthy sentiment has cause 1 them to follow with marvellous 

 success the monumental style of the i^roat ' Syst(i;ne Silurian,' 

 and the arranp;ement which necessitates numerous chapters 

 after the modtd of the notorious one on Snakes in Iceland. It 

 is no doubt the same piety that has induced them to |)ublish 

 25 plates by a pitiable jierson called L;inghans. Goncerninf^- 

 these j)lates 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 fra'>-- 

 nients, to which Barrande. doubtless for his own convenience 

 had casually attached manuscript nan)es " au point de vue 

 scientitique .... nullcmcnt justifi<:?s." 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 dcjclinons 

 toute responsibilite sur la question de leur admissibilite." 

 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- 

 tcmatisjs as to the value of tiiese names! What hideous 

 contusion, 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; 

 ditHcultics enough will confront us in reconciling the artisfic 

 representations by Swoboda with the outlines thoughttully 

 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 Beyrichocrinus. Plate 51) 

 tig. 4 shows no basal smaller than the two others; (ho 

 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 J). 13, has it in a |)Osition that is ditlerent 

 but not more precisely determinable. A point of equal 

 importance, especially considering the authors' doubt as to 

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

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



