10 
Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
As regards their articular surfaces, b, d, e, and g are of the type figured by Laube, 
pl. VIII a, fig. 5 a\ a more like his fig. 5 h; f like this but smaller and less clearly 
defined; while in c the length of the crenellae is about x / 3 the diameter of the 
joint-face and there is no rim. The last form resembles some columnals of Encrinus 
Hliiformis — for instance fig. 8rj on pl. LIII of Goldfuss «Petrefacta Germaniae», — 
but the crenellae are finer and more numerous. There are in the British Museum 
similar specimens associated with E. cassianus from St. Cassian, and there is one 
such at Munich among Münster’s original specimens, referred by him to E. Hliiformis. 
There are also from Cserhat five quite small specimens, ( h—l ) which may have 
belonged to the young of this species. The markings on k resemble those of the 
last mentioned; those on i and h are more like the rimless normal type; and those 
on the rest are obscure. 
The measurements in millimetres are as follows: 
Specimen . . 
a 
b 
c 
d 
e 
/ 
§ 
h 
i 
j 
k 
/ 
Plate I. Fig. . . . 
1 
— 
2 
— 
3 
— 
4 
5 
6 
— 
7 
— 
Diameter .... 
4’5 
4-5 
43 
375 
3‘3 
2-3 
27 
1-9 
1'9 
1'5 
17 
0'9 
Height... 
2'4 
1-6 
2-7 
L8 
3’6 
3-25 
3 
275 
17 
1-4 
1 
L2 
about 
about 
No. of Crenellae . 
24 
20 
16 
14—16 
17 
13 
16 
12 
14 
? 
18 
? 
Length of Crenellae 
07 
0'7 
1-3 
0-6 
0'5 
0'5 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
Measurements 
given 
Measurements of 
Münster’s 
Originals. 
by 
Laube, 
Beiträge IV 
', P 1 - 
V, f. 
1. 
a 
b 
c 
e 
Diameter . . 
90 
8-0 
5*5 
12 
!'5 
1T5 
10 
6'4 
Height. 
8-0 
5-0 
4-0 
— 
— 
— 
No. of Crenellae . 
— 
— 
22 
21 
22 
20 
Münster’s figures 1 a, b , e are, it will be observed, not quite correct. 
Laube’s figures show 25, 26, and 31 crenellae in columnals of uncertain dia¬ 
meter, 24 in a columnal of 11‘5 mm. diameter, 33 in one of 10'5 mm. diameter, 
22 in columnals of 10 and 675 mm. diameter. 
R e 1 a t i o n s o f the specimens from Bakony. — Had the normal 
E. cassianus occurred at Cserhat, it is hardly likely that it would have escaped 
Observation. Therefore one cannot regard all these specimens as merely young, nor 
indeed do a — <2 present the appearance of young in other respects. They may have 
belonged to individuals dwarfed by local conditions, or they may represent a genuine 
variety with smallness as a transmissible character. Their rarity suggests the former 
as the more probable explanation, and this is why I do not propose for them any 
distinct name. A very similar columnal is to be seen on a fragment of Hallstätter 
Kalk from Steinbergkogel, in the Hofmuseum at Vienna. 
As regards the smaller specimens, li —/, one should not overlook the possibility 
that some or all of them may belong to Dadocrinns. The joint-face of h is inter- 
mediate between Kunisch, 1883, tab. cit. f. 6 a and b; that of i is like Kunisch, 
f. 6 c, but has fewer crenellae; that of Ji however is like the normal E. cassianus 
in everything except size. 
