fjOirer Pahpozoic Crinoids of Bohemia. 115 



species or even a single individuiil ; with the anal area 

 distinguished ordy, and that .sliichtiy, by its greater width 

 and greater number of phites; with arms bifurcating fairly 

 reguhuly from '6 to '> times (possibly more), and composed of 

 simple brachials, which in the free portions are piniiulate and 

 either uniserial (especially in the proximal region) or alterna- 

 ting (especially in the distal region), but not biserial in any 

 authentic specimen ; with both the primibrachs, all the 

 secundibraclis, which are numerous, and the more proximal 

 tertibrachs loosely joined to those of adjacent rays by a pave- 

 ment or network of plates. 



A very careful study of a large number of specimens 

 belonging to this variable genus has led the authors to 

 separate them, according to the ornament of the cup-plates 

 and especially the interbrachial network, into the following 

 species and varieties, which form a closely connected series : 

 tScyphocrinuH suhornatus; S. e.vcavatus, var. Zenonis, var. 

 Sc/i/ot/ieimi, var. fi/pica, var. Schroeteri ; S. decoratus. Except 

 S. e.ccuvatus, all these names are new ; the name S. suhornatus 

 is indeed ascribed to Barrande, but apparently only on manu- 

 script evidence. One misses the familiar S. eleffans, Zenker ; 

 but this yields to the name Pentacrinites excavatuSj which 

 Schlutlieim in 1820 applied to pi. iv. fig. 2 of J. S. Schroe- 

 ter's ' V^oUstiindige Einleitung &c.,' 1778, in which work 

 the honour of original discovery is ascribed to F. Zeno, 

 Professor at Prague University. The case is, however, no 

 clearer than usual with these old names, it is admitted that 

 the details given by ISchroeier and Schlotheim do not indi- 

 cate definitely any one even of the species, much less one of 

 the varieties, distinguished by the present authors. The 

 name eacavatus lias by no previous writer been resuscitated 

 or applied to Scyphocrinus. One would therefore be inclined 

 to let it rest and to adopt S. eleganSj Zenker, did not Messrs. 

 VVaagen and Jahn assert their inability to find in either 

 figures or description of Zenker the characters absolutely 

 necessary for any decision as to which of their species may 

 claim the name eleyans. Since, moreover, not one of the 

 numerous writers on this genus has attempted to give pre- 

 cision to the specific name, the way seems clear for the 

 present authors to exercise their free clioice. Therefore they 

 make the loosely defined eleyans a synonym of the loosely 

 defined excavaluSj and adopt the older term for their largest 

 species. The chief objection to this j)roceeding is that 

 one can after all determine the species to which Zenker 

 applied the name <!>'. eleyans. in the very words of the 

 volume before us : " I'esp^ce de Zenker diff^re notableraent 



