242 
Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
easy to distinguish, but the reference of a dozen to Encrinus cassianus and of 
another to E. granulosus seemed safe enough to warrant the inference that the 
Cserhät group was probably of Cassian age. The only species that could be 
recognised in the Jeruzsälemhegy group was Isocrinus tyrolcnsis, but this occurred 
in forms rather differt t from the normal St. Cassian columnals, and it seemed 
likely that they represented a time-mutation with its own local varieties. This, 
however, was enough to show that the Jeruzsälemhegy group, though younger than 
the Cserhät group, was not very much younger; and thus one came to the provi- 
sional conclusion that the Cserhät group was of Cassian age, and the Jeruzsälem¬ 
hegy group of Raiblian age. 
A general survey of the Echinoid fossils, made before their ultimate minute 
description was undertaken, conflrmed this conclusion. Among the fragments of 
test, for instance, those of more pronouncedly Diademoid aspect were characteristic 
of the Jeruzsälemhegy group. The radioles of the Cserhät group included many 
that were indistinguishable from common Cassian species, whereas the radioles of the 
Jeruzsälemhegy group always seemed to be just a little different from Cassian forms. 
On communicating these conclusions to Professor de Löczy, I was delighted to 
find that they fully agreed with the results derived from the more extended palae- 
ontological work already accomplished on other groups, and confirmed by such 
stratigraphical evidence as was available. This was subsequently well summarised 
by Dr. G. von Arthaber in «Lethea Geognostica» (ii Theil, I Bd, 3 Lief., pp. 424—429; 
20 Dec., 1905). Such value as my conclusions may have is certainly enhanced by the 
fact that they were come to without any prejudice from external sources. Conversely 
their agreement with all other evidence is a further proof (if proof be needed) of the 
fundamental correctness of those principles that govern modern palaeontology. 
Having furnished my quota of evidence, I leave to the Editor ot the series. 
Professor L. de Löczy, all discussion concerning the geological relationships of the 
various localities. We may, however, consider more closely the relations of the 
Cserhät and Jeruzsälemhegy Eehinoderm faunas to those found in adjacent regions, 
and to one another. 
The Crinoid fauna of the Cserhät group comprises at most eight recognisable 
species; three of these belong to Encrinus, and three to Isocrinus; the generic 
Position of the others, as well as of various less well-marked columnals, is doubtful, 
but it is probable that Dadocrinus is represented. If, for reasons previously given, 
we regard this fauna as of Cassian age, the most remarkable feature is the small 
Proportion of species common to St. Cassian and Bakony: only Encrinus cassianus , 
one doubtful fragment of E. granulosus, and a few ossicles allied to « Pentacrinus 
venustus». Even the columnals referred to E. cassianus are far from normal, being 
dwarfed forms. Moreover these very species are just those that are least charac¬ 
teristic of the Cassian horizon ; at least, both E. cassianus and E. granulosus have 
been recorded from both lower and higher horizons. 1 The determinations, however 
1 In addition to references already given, see : C. F. Parona, 1889, p. 148, E. cassianus colum¬ 
nals in Raiblian of Acquate, Lombardy ; Wöhrmann & Koken 1892, p. 170, E. cassianus columnals in 
Raiblian dolomite of the Schiern plateau ; F. Broili, 1904, pp. 150, 151, and F. Blaschke, 1905, 
p. 166, E. granulosus and E. cassianus from Pachycardientuffe; A. Martelli, 1905, pp. 330, 331, 
E. granulosus and E. cassianus in Wengen Beds of Montenegro ; P. Principi, 1908, p. 201, E. granu¬ 
losus columnals from Rhaetic [!] of Mte. Malbe near Perugia 
