Lotcer Palaeozoic Crinoids of Bohcmui. 107 



authors refer their ^enus to the family Actinocrini'hc as 

 defined by Zittel in 1S7'J. There is, however, nothing in 

 the part ])ieserved (Fig. 2) to j)revent its assignment to the 

 family Carpocrinidaj founded by the same authority ; and, to 

 speak even more precisely, there is no particular reason why 

 these cups should not belong to a Carpocrinus or Desmido- 

 crinus. Tlic authors indeed say that " lioJiemicocrinua is 

 distinguished from all otlior genera of crinoids described 

 duwn to this day, by the characteristic conformation of the 

 two radii on each side of the anal interradius, as well as by 

 the structure of the latter and of the other interradii." 

 When this was written the authors were doubtless unac- 

 quainted with the structure of the cup in Barratideocrinus, 

 since that was first published by Wachmuth aufl Si)ringer 

 in ^lay 1<^97. The same jieculiarities are emphasized in that 

 genus; and yet the structure of the cup alone would scarcely 

 justify the removal of Barrandeocrinus from Carpocrinus. 

 Jt is highly improbable that Bohemicocrinus possessed the 

 remarkable arms of Barrandrocriniis ; therefore, though the 

 name Bolu-Dikocriinis may be a convenient way of expres- 

 sing the imperfect nature of the known specimens, there 

 seems reason to thijik that it may ultimately prove a syno- 

 nym of Carpocrinus ox Dtsmidocrinus. Eucalyptocrinus, Co- 

 rymhocrinus (= C/o?iocriVjw5, Quenst.), and Dolatocrinus have 

 no anal resting on the base, and it is not clear why they 

 should have been dragged into comparison. 



Carulicrinus is based on a crown and an arni-frafrment 

 from the black limestone (e 1-2) of Karlstein (whence the 

 name), and another arm-fragment from the white limestone, 

 e2, near Lochkov. These are all placed in a new species, 

 C. Barrandei. This species is a many-plated camerate 

 crinoid not unlike Sci/phocrinus, with which it is associated 

 in the rocks ; but the biserial arrangement of the brachials 

 would alone justify its severance therefrom. Unfortunately 

 the authors, impressed by the general resemblance to Sci/pho- 

 ainus, have not thought it necessary to compare Carolicrinus 

 with genera foreign to Bohemia. The imperfection of the 

 base also is held to excuse them from discussing the sys- 

 tematic position of the genus. The authurs believe that 

 there were three basals, two large and one small, the latter 

 being in the posterior interradius (strajige position !) ; and 

 they will not admit that the proximal anal rested on the 

 base. At the same time they " cannot quite guarantee the 

 correctness of the exj)lanation just given." The published 

 figures do not help one even to the bare facts of the case, so 

 that an attem])t at any other interpretation is out of the 



