348 Dr. F. A. Bather — On Psalidocrinus remesi. 



should specimen B ultimately be placed in a different species, then 

 the species to which it is referred will be the genotype of Psalido- 

 crinus. 



From Apsidocrinus tliis genus differs chiefly in its large radial 

 facets and in the different shape of the interradial processes. In my 

 opinion it has been modified from Eugeniacrinites in the same way as 

 Apsidocrinus has been modified from Phyllocriyius. This seems to be 

 proved, not only by its external form and its flattened but spacious 

 patinal cavity, but especially by the larger size and peculiar shape of 

 the radial facets, wiiich, as in Eugeniacrinites, reach far up the 

 interradial processes. 



It seems probable that the brachials of this crinoid resemble those 

 of Eugeniacrinites in shape. I am, however, not convinced that the 

 brachials described by Jaekel as axillaria of Eugeniacrinites really 

 belong to that genus. On the contrary, I am inclined to ascribe to 

 both Eugeniacrinites and Psalidocrinus such axillaria as resemble 

 Cyrtocriniis in their articular surfaces. Among the isolated brachials 

 as yet discovered, however, I am not able to identify any with those 

 of Psalidocrinus. 



Both tlie specimens lierein described are in my collection, and 

 were obtained from the marl layers of the white limestone quarry, 

 " Obecni lorn," in Stramberg, Moravia, 



PART II. By F. A. BAthek. 

 (Published by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.) 



Dr. Hemes, having paid me the compliment of entrusting me with 

 the editing of his manuscript and with the preparation of the 

 illustrations to his paper, has also been good enough to permit me 

 to develop his specimens more than was possible for him. Although 

 this led me to communicate to him certain criticisms, it seemed 

 inadvisable to modify his manuscript to any great extent. Except, 

 therefore, for a few measurements which I have taken the liberty of 

 rendering more precise, Dr. Hemes remains responsible for the contents 

 of his own paper. 



The fixing on specimen B as the type of the new genus was due to 

 my suggestion, and the present note is intended to show why that 

 course seemed to me particularly desirable. In a word, I cannot 

 readily agree with Dr. Eemes that his specimens A and B belong to 

 one and the same species. The differences are as follows : — 



The stem-facet in A is, as Dr. Remes recognizes, markedly hollowed; 

 in B it is flat. In A the ratio of the stem-facet to the greatest 

 diameter of the patina is -37 ; in B it is '29. In A the outline of 

 the facet is subpentagonal with rounded radial angles ; in B it is 

 subcircular. In neither specimen can I detect the " star-shaped mark 

 round the lumen", but in B the joint-face is covered with irregular, 

 anastomosing, rather obscure pustules, with a slightly radiating 

 arrangement (Text-fig. 2) ; in A there are only some obscure 

 depressions in the cavity, apparently interradial in position, but 

 that is rather vague. It may be noted, by the way, that the 

 plane of the stem-facet in B is a little oblique to the main axis 

 (Text-fig. 1). 



