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 iutersecuudibrachs are 

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

 tcrtibrachs 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 j)lacin<^ 

 Beyrichocrinus among Monocyclica Camerata. Therein it 

 falls apjjarently into the Suborder Batocrinoidea, and the 

 family Periechocrinidfe, 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 Periechocrinua. Whether 

 Beyrichocrinns may be identical with any of these, is a 

 question for the future. It appears allied to Periechocrinus, 

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

 tinctive characters are the wedge sha|)e of tiie proximal anal, 

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



Bohemicocrinus (why not Bohemicrinus?) is established 

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

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



Fifr. 2. — Analvi^is of the cup oi Bohemicocrinm pulvereus, outlines copied 

 from* Waajren and Jiihn, a little over nat. size. Shading as in 

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

 brachials are desciioed by the authors as accessory plates ; they 

 do not occur in the only other specimen known. 



label by Barr.'inde, is consistently spelled imherens — a mani- 

 fest misprint of familiar nature. One specimen comes from 

 the white limestone, e2 of Kosoi^, the other from black 

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



