104 Mr. F. A. Bather on the 



Tlie lobation is doubtless peculiar, but in every figure it is 

 representeil diftorcutly, so that one can only enquire whether 

 the lobes arc radial or interradial : they are clearly radial in 

 one drawing, clenrly interradial in another, and not clearly 

 anything in the rest. The text throws no light on the 

 matter, unless the following sentences may suggest a solu- 

 tion of the riddle : " Ce genre n'est representd que par un 

 fragment de la couronne " (p. 12) ; " sous cette denomination, 

 nous comjn-onons le calice et les bras, abstraction faite de la 

 tige " (p. 3) ; *' la base est ... . presque entibvement cachee 

 par la tige" (p. lo) ; "les exemplaires [note plural!] du 

 genre Bcyrichocrinus etaient munis d'une tige" (p. 15). 

 But the apparent contradiction is probably due to an ambi- 

 guity introduced by the translator — another obstacle in the 

 path of the authors. Whether due to the imperfection of the 

 specimens or the carelessness of the artists, such discrepancies 

 are only too numerous. 



The Crinoidea of the Lower Palaeozoic rocks of Bohemia, 

 as presented in this volume, may be divided into three 

 classes: (i.) Incertce sedis ; (ii.) Scyphocrinus species and 

 varieties : (iii.) eight new species, distributed among seven 

 new genera. If this statement can be substantiated, then 

 the authors are to be congratulated on having at least 

 fulfilled our dream of novelty. ]5ut their caution and candour 

 are so manifest that they will be the first to admit the rather 

 unsatisfactory foundations for some of these genera. Let us 

 examine them in order, the order being first by geological 

 periods and then alphabetical — a final Barrandean touch. 

 The absence of a strict systematic arrangement and the 

 doubt that surrounds many of the genera have prevented our 

 authors from drawing up diagnoses. In attempting to 

 abstract the salient features, I hope to be pardoned if I use 

 the terminology elsewhere employed by me ^. 



* The old-fasbioued terminology retained by Messrs. Waagen aud 

 Jabn for tlie arm-structures obscures tbeir homologies in Canierate 

 Ciinoids. Tbe term pieces brachialcs is due to L. de Koninck, who 

 api)lied it solely to the fixed arm-ossicles, while he called the free arm- 

 ossicles articles brachiaux. Since tbe present authors restrict the term 

 brachialia to tbe free ossicles, they should not translate it by 2^icces 

 hrachiales (p. o). A similar error as to articles brachiaux occurs on p, 17 

 of Wachsmuth and Springer's 'Crinuidea Camerata." The term route 

 (vault) connotes a structure now admitted by all to be imaginary ; while 

 the terms trompe (proboscis) and canal nourricier (alimentary caual) are 

 equally misleading. The well-known term cirri, though introduced on 

 p. 9, is replaced in practice by the term vrilles (tendrils), which is no 

 gain. Again, the term cfl/y.c is defined on p. 3 in the sense in which 

 it has been used by Wachsmuth and Springer aud others : " the employ- 

 ment of tlie word calyx to designate that part which is only the dorsal 



