226 
Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
The next species, Cidaris Brandis, is also made by Laube a synonym of 
C. ßexuosa, and examination of Klipstein’s type material (B. M. 36527) leads me to 
confirm his action. In C. Petersi, hovvever, Laube himself has founded a species 
which seems remarkably close to C. ßexuosa as thus extended by him. As in the 
original specimens of C. Brandis (B. M. 36527), the cross-ridges are regulär, almost 
horizontal, and not wavy. The body of the radiole is wider, larger, and thicker 
than in the type-speeimens of C. ßexuosa, and spreads out more rapidly from the 
annulus; but all these features are seen, though less pronounced, in C. Brandis. 
The margin of the acetabulum is said by Laube to be quite smooth; but there 
are traces of crenelation, at all events in the smaller of the two syntypes. The 
remaining feature is the presence of tubercles at the distal end ; these, however, 
may, as recognised by Münster (p. 45), occur in C. ßexuosa. 
It seems probable that the four forms to which the names cingulata, ßexuosa, 
Brandis, and Petersi have been applied represent respectively the adoral, ambital, 
adapical, and apical radioles of a single species, to which C. undulata may also 
belong. This species, for which the name « Cidaris » ßexuosa should be maintained, 
is distinguished by longitudinal striation, combined on the shaft with transverse 
ridging, and by the minute structure already described, of which the essential features 
are regulär radiate septa and a wide lumen occupying about 0‘64 of the diameter 
of the shaft. The last character has, it is true, not been proved for the form called 
C. Petersi, but of it only two specimens are known (vide antea, p. 224). 
We turn now to C. linearis, C. Meyeri, and C. bicarinata. Laube was of 
opinion that C. Meyeri (which he mis-spelled Mayeri) differed from C. ßexuosa 
«nur durch die etwas spitzere Form»; but neither he nor Hesse, who followed his 
synonymy and his spelling, saw Klipstein’s specimens of C. Meyeri or adduced any 
evidence in Support of his opinion. Klipstein’s MS. list of specimens sold to the 
British Museum mentions four specimens under «No. 652, Cidaris Meyeri». There 
are, however, four specimens now associated with the holotype, making five in 
all, and registered as 36496 a — e. The locality of the first specimen found (probably 
the holotype) was Set Sass; the others came from the Campillberge. The various 
specimens of C. ßexuosa that I have seen are assigned merely to St. Cassian. 
Examination of Klipstein’s specimens of C Meyeri reveals the following differences 
from C. ßexuosa. The longitudinal striation is twice as fine and has not the trans¬ 
verse ridges so characteristic of C. ßexuosa, the «Querzeichnungen» mentioned by 
Klipstein being for the most part bands of colour, which are seen only in the 
holotype, together with a prominent ring probably due to repair of the radiole 
during life. The general shape, small base, low and smooth annulus, and short 
collerette, all distinguish this form from C. ßexuosa ; but above all is the fact that 
no specimen of C. Meyeri possesses the wide lumen and thin wall of that species. 
The rarity of C. Meyeri and the rather poor state of preservation of its representatives 
throw doubt on its specific independence; but if it is to be referred to any species, 
it must be to C. linearis, which it approaches in general shape and Ornament. 
From authoritative specimens of that species, however, it differs in the smaller base, 
the non-projecting annulus, the clearly marked collerette, the cigar-like shape, and 
the relative fineness of the longitudinal striation. The lumen of C. linearis (PI. XIII, 
figs. 433, 434) is wider than that of C. Meyeri, although not so wide as that of C. 
ßexuosa-, the specimen figured by Klipstein, pl xviii, f. 13 (Brit. Mus. 36511) has a 
