212 
Tviassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
which still further dissimilarity may be observed The peripheral septa on the 
ridges and pustules have here only half the width of those in C. similis, and 
therefore produee no surface-ornament visible under a hand-lens Further, the septa 
are soon lost in the general confusion of the inner layers, whereas in C. similis, 
however wavy thcir course may be, they can alvvays be distinguished. 
Many of the compressed lanceolate radioles are not unlike small examples of 
C. Waechteri, vvhile others less compressed might possibly be compared with 
C. Wissmanni From these species, however, C. parastadifera is adequately 
distinguished by the ridges on which the pustules are mounted, not to mention the 
very distinct micro-structure. 
Some of the smaller compressed specimens also remind one strongly of Cidaris 
spinulosa Klipst. (= C. perplexa Desor). This form has been fully discussed under 
the heading Cidaris Waechteri (p. 191). 
The subclaviform radioles are often suggestive of the little-known species 
Cidaris austriaca Desor (1855, p. 20, pl. ii. f. 14) based on C. ovifera Klipstein 
(1843, p. 271, pl xviii, f. 8 a, b) non Agassiz. The differences noticeable are the 
striation of the collerette and the absence of pronounced pustules in C. austriaca, 
although it is obvious that the ridges are formed of fused pustules. I cannot stay 
here to describe the original specimens of this species (Brit. Mus 36499), but I may 
say that the figured one, which I take as lectotype, is probably related rather to 
C. Hausmanni than to any other Cassian species. 
ln the collection of the Geological Survey at Budapest, are some small radioles 
like elongate C. Hausmanni, with thorn-like pustules in longitudinal rows. They 
are said to come from St. Cassian, but, so far as I remember, they are more like 
C. parastadifera than any other Cassian form They were obtained from Klipstein, 
and bear a printed label issued by him with the name «■Cidaris Klipsteini Gümbel». 
Gümbel (1861, p. 274) seems to have intended this name for radioles of Raiblian 
age from the Lödensee at the foot of the Kienberg. He diel not, however, figure 
or describe these, except by saying that they agreed very well with Klipstein’s pl. 
xviii, f. 16. But that figure represents a fragment of test, which, oddly enough, 
was already the holotype of C. Klipsteini Desor (1855, p. 4), a species for which 
I have on page 84 used the name Miocidaris Cassiani Bather (1909, p. 61). It 
seems impossible that Gümbel can have intended to refer to this figure, and his 
C. Klipsteini is therefore a no m e n n u d u m, as weil as a doubly preoccupied 
homonym. The original Cidaris Klipsteini is due to Marcou in Agassiz & Desor 
(1847, p. 140) and was unjustifiably called Cidaris arnpla by Desor (1858, p. 
484). Its holotype is the fragment of radiole figured by Klipstein (1843, pl xviii, 
f. 5) as Cidaris d'Orbignyiana (non C. Orbignyana Ag. 1840, p. 10), and is in 
the British Museum [E 4601]. Obvicmsly it has nothing to do with C. parastadifera 
or any related species; but it should have been equally obvious from Klipstein’s 
description and figures that it could have nothing to do with C. semicostata, to 
which it was referred by Laube (1865, p 289) and Broili (1904, p. 157) Without 
entering into a description of the interesting original, 1 may say it that appears inter- 
mediate between C. Waechteri and C. flexuosa, but that the evidence for referring 
it to either of those species is quite inadequate. 
The only other species that needs mention in this connection is Cidaris 
Hausmanni, with which some of the smaller subclaviform radioles of C. parastadifera 
