256 
remains, as not to leave the least appearance of any intervening matter. 
A specimen of this marble, in which the sections of the vertebral 
column are observable, is represented Plate XVI. Fig. 15. 
In the year 1724, Dr. Eberhard Frederic Hiemer, of Wirtemberg, 
published a letter to Dr. Scheuchzer, describing a pentacrinite mate- 
rially differing from any which has since been described.* The 
remains of this animal were found on a schistose slab, which was taken 
out of the quarries of Ombden, in the Duchy of Wirtemberg, and 
which was about four feet in length, and rather more than three feet 
in width. The whole of this slab appears to have been covered with 
the remains of the animal ; several of its arms traversing the whole 
length of the stone, which was also exquisitely ornamented by the ex- 
tremely minute, but perfectly distinct branches. The arms or larger 
branches were formed of pentagonal vertebrae, and crossed each other 
in different directions, appearing to have united and inosculated with 
each other at all these points of contact. The terminations of these 
arms are described as being a congeries of the most minute and slender 
branches, giving exactly the resemblance of a flower. 
The distinguishing characteristic of the pentacrinite of Hiemer 
seems to be the union of the several vertebral columns, or of the arms 
or branches, at those points where they happened to have crossed 
each other, no such circumstance being observable in any of the other 
species of this animal. 
The fossil here described was afterwards purchased of Mr. Hiemer, 
by Mr. Keysler, who presented it to M. de Hugo, in whose cabinet 
it was deposited. The size of this specimen, and the distinctness 
of the fossil remains which were displayed on its surface, ena- 
bled its original possessor to give that accurate description and 
* Caput Medusae utpote novum diluvii universalis monumentum detectum in Agro 
Wirtemburgico et brevi dissertatiuncula Epistolari expositum, ab Eberhard. Frider. 
Hiemero ; S. S. Tbeol. Doctore. Stuttgard. 
