Crinoidea,. Encrinidae. 
9 
centre, although these are often supressed or modified in the central region, and 
may be surrounded at the periphery by a smooth rim. In many forms, and in the 
young possibly of all, these ridges are subject to pentamerism, which, however, is 
usually obseured in older columnals. The main lines of this, namely those starting 
nearest the centre, are radial in position, as shown in Klipstein (1845) pl. XVIII, 
fig. 19 b, and Quenstedt «Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands», pl. CV1I, fig. 90 a, both 
said to be Encrinus varians, as well as in E. granulöses. 
Thus it is not easy to distinguish the columnals alone from those of Dado- 
crinus (see Kunisch, 1883, pl. VIII, f. 6 a, e ), or from ordinary inter-nodals of Holo- 
crinus (see Wagner, 1886, pl. I, figs. 2, 6), or even of Balanocrinus. In Isocrinus 
and Extracrinus the pentamerism is stronger, while in Millericrinus the lumen 
appears to be wider. 
Encrinus cassianus. 
(Plate I, figs. 1—9.) 
1845. Flabellocrinites cassianus A. v. Klipstein : Geol. Östlich. Alpen, p. 277, pl. XVIII, fig 23 a, b. 
1855. Encrinites Buchii H. Emmrich : Jahrb. geol. Reichsanst. VI, p. 896. 
1864. Encrinus cassianus G. C. Laube: Jahrb. geol. Reichsanst. XIV, p. 405; Verh. geol. Reichs¬ 
anst. XIV, p. 207. 
1865. Encrimis cassianus Laube. •— Laube: Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Nat. CI. XXIV, 
Abt. 2, p. 267, pl. VIII a, fig. 1—6. 
1875. Encrimis cassianus Laube. — F. A. Quenstedt : Petrefactenk. Deutschlands, IV, pp. 472, 
486, pl. CVII, figs. S : 9, 103—111, 113, 114 (probably not 112 or 115). 
History of the species. — The previous synonymy is given by Laube (1865) 
There is, however, a liability to confusion, since Laube, following A. d’Orbigny 1 , refers 
Klipstein’s Flabellocrinites cassianus to Encrinus granulöses Münster, and regards 
E. cassianus Laube as a new conception. The holotype of Flabellocrinites cassianus 
is in the British Museum (75861) and apparently was not exatnined by either d'Orbigny 
or Laube. Sixteen years ago, when labelling the specimens for exhibition, I came to 
the conclusion that it was a crushed specimen of E. cassianus Laube, and not of 
E. granulöses , 2 A renewed examination confirms me in this belief. Inspection of 
Klipstein’s figure, 23 b, is alone enough to show that the ridges are much coarser 
than in E. granulöses; the central area resembles that of E. cassianus Laube, rather 
than of E. granulöses; the concentric rings are not really so clear as in Klipstein’s 
figure, and the concentric striation of which he speaks is not of the same nature as that 
in E. granulöses, but seems to be the combined effect of shearing and weathering. 
Other specimens of E. cassianus present a somewhat similar appearance; Quenstedt’s 
fig. 104 shows ridges of equal length. Whether one should ascribe the species to 
Laube or to Klipstein is a question of small importance; but if Laube regarded 
Klipstein's species as an Encrinus, then according to modern codes of nomenclature, 
he should not have given to another species of the genus the same trivial name. 
Material from Bakony corapared with Types and Topotypes. — 
Seven fragments (a — g) from the Cassian beds of Cserhät present a general resem- 
blance to this species, though much smaller than the normal St. Cassian columnals. 
1 Prodrome Paleont. stratigr. I, p. 206; 1850. 
8 See also F. A. Bather, 1897 «Apiocrinus recubariensis, etc.», p. 121. 
