Lower Palavzoic Crinoids of Bohemia. 110 



could 1m: traced in .s|icciineii.s that have the aiiiis hcltei 

 preserved. 



It is curiuus that, in describing sonic undetorniincd tegniina 

 which may j)ossiijly belong to Sci//)/iocri)ius, the authors 

 should twice observe that they are unable to see " I'ouvorture 

 buccale sur le fragment," especially as they most definitely 

 refer these specimens to the Camerata of Wachsniuth and 

 Springer or the equivalent llypascocrina of Neumayr, 

 which arc characterized by tiic total absence of a mouth- 

 opening. Possibly these remarkable sentences are due to the 

 translator. 



Of all the specimens of Sci//thocruii(s only four retain any 

 ot the stem, and in the most jierfcct of these it consists of but 

 7 columnals. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that the 

 stem often attained a length of many metres. Various roots 

 are associated with the remains of Scjjphocrinus^ but the 

 authors do not feel justified in referring any one of these to 

 the genus. Some of these roots sprang frotn the curious 

 hollow and chambered spheroids known as Loboliths. But 

 if these cautious paleontologists ever intend to hint that those 

 bodies may be a part of Scyphocriaus, they have reserved 

 their remarks for a future volume on roots. 



llealizing the futility of discussing, on the evidence of 

 professedly incorrect figures, those remains which the authors 

 themselves decline to determine, we may summarize in a table 

 (p. 120) what this analysis has brought out concerning the 

 Palaiozoic crinoid fauna of Bohemia. 



It is probable that all the species are new, but they should 

 be compared afresh with known species of the genera to which 

 they are here referred. The genera, however, are not so 

 strange as they seemed at first. Bohernicocnnus and Caleido- 

 crinus may be accepted without hesitation ; Beyrichocrlaus 

 and Laubeocn'nus are open to slight (juestion. But if half of 

 the genera are new, even that is a large pro[)ortion ; and since 

 the authors believe that all records of >Sc(//jhocn'nus outside 

 Bohemia are insufficiently supported, five out of the eight 

 genera may possibly be peculiar to that province. 



The autliors have nowhere ventured to arrange their genera 

 in systematic order. The attempt here made, if near the truth, 

 is rather startling. The extraordinarily large |)roportion of 

 Monocycliea and the truly remarkable absence of Inadunata 

 afi'ord much food for reflection. But considering the rarity of 

 cririoid-bearing beds in Bohemia, perhaps one should not lay 

 great stress on negative evidence. Some of the doubtful 

 remains are of rather Inadunato apjtearance. The absence of 

 Monocyclic Adunata is less noteworthy, since this order did 



