244 
Trias sic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
survived though the Encrinidae perished. No obscure or metaphysical reasons are 
required; but it is of interest to note that vvith the passing of the Encrinidae jve bid 
farewell to what may be regarded as the last representatives of the Palaeozoic 
types of Crinoid, the direct descendants of Carboniferous genera. 
Turning to the fragments of Echinoid Test, we find in the Cserhät group only 
one determinable species, but of that there are 27 specimens. This is regarded as 
a new species, Triadocidavis persimilis; but its close relationship to the St. Cassian 
T. subsimilis is pointed out on p. 75. The reniaining fragments of test are both 
few and obscure ; but appear to represent about six other species. The total num- 
ber of test-fragments (including jaws) from the Cserhat group is 42. 
The Jeruzsälemhegy group has yielded 63 test-fragments ; and these represent 
at least eight clearly distinct and recognisable species. Probably there are remains 
of 10 or 11 species, as opposed to the 7 from Cserhat. Of these species three, 
with a doubtful fourth, are referred to Triadocidavis; two, and a doubtful third, 
to Miocidaris; one to Anaulocidaris; two to Mesodiadema; and one to Diadcm- 
opsis. The species of Triadocidavis and Miocidaris suggest a connection with the 
St. Cassian fauna, but none of thern agrees with described Cassian species; on the 
contrary they indicate a higher horizon. Triadocidavis practcrnobilis and T. immu- 
nita approach the Diademoid type of Ornament; the species of Miocidaris, in their 
wide interambulacrals with contiguous or confluent scrobicules, seem to have 
passed beyond the evolutionary stage of the Cassian species. It is, however, 
the presence of Mesodiadema and a probable, though primitive, Diademopsis that 
definitely marks the horizon as supra-Cassian; and the actual reference of it to 
Raiblian is confirmed by the unexpected identification of our Mesodiadema latum 
(p. 118) with the interambulacrals provisionally referred by Wöhrmann to his Cidaris 
Schwageri (p. 229) 
The distinction that study of the crinoids and of the echinoid tests enables 
one to draw between the Cserhat and Jeruzsälemhegy groups is fully confirmed by 
the Echinoid Radioles. The evidence is strong enough, but there are reasons for 
doubting whether it is quite so strong as inspection of the Table would lead one 
to suppose. According to that Table, the radioles fall into about a score of 
species, of which only four are new. Of these species, 7 are confined to the Cser- 
hät group, and 4 to the Jeruzsälemhegy group. In three of the others there is a 
special form characteristic of the Jeruzsälemhegy group. The remainder are few 
in specimens and several of these are doubtful. This evidence then is conclusive 
as to the distinetness of the faunas; it appears to be no less conclusive as to their 
age. Seeing that nearly all the Cserhät radioles are assigned to well-known 
Cassian species, while in the Jeruzsälemhegy group are such species as 
Anaulocidaris testudo and Cidaris parastadifera, less familiär but still known 
from Raiblian localities elsewhere, the conclusion seems so inevitable that all 
the previous laboured argument looks unnecessary if not absurd. But I think 
any one with a wide knowledge of Echinoids would have criticised me had I based 
an argument as to age on radioles alone. Although the Cserhät radioles are referred 
to Cassian species, it must be remembered that the same is not the case with the 
Cserhät fragments of tests. It is therefore quite possible that the radioles do not 
really belong to the same species as do their isomorphs at St. Cassian: the tests 
may be different, and yet the radioles indistinguishable. Although by the necessities 
