264 
Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony. 
therefore incapable of being used in that or any other sense. But if interpreted 
by Andreae’s own words in the same sentence and elsevvhere on the associated 
pages, it is clear that by « Encrinns » Andreae in the first place understood the 
«Lilienstein», just as Ellis did, and just as Blumenbach did. 
Further evidence as to the Contemporary use of «Encrinus» is afforded by 
J. Hofer (1760 «De Polyporitis vel Zoophytis petrefactis», Acta Helvet. IV). ln the 
learned account of bis genus Anthoporitci , he comes (p. 204) to the list of « Entrochi 
florales sive Encrini », and these are illustrated by various figures of undoubted 
Encrinus Uliiformis. 
As for the use of Encrinus by Schulze* (1760), there can never have been 
any doubt as to bis meaning, whether his words or his plates be taken into account; 
and for this reason it bas always seemed to me the simplest and most satisfactory 
course to credit the name, in its Post-Linnean use, to him. This, with a full know- 
ledge of all the facts, I have done in the earlier pages of this memoir. If the alter¬ 
native be an ultra-rigid application of the rules, the result would simply be the 
elimination of the name Encrinus , and some-one would have to find another. There 
might be some advantages in this course, but is it really vvorth while ? Perhaps 
we should have to use Flabellocrinites Klipstein, perhaps Chclocrinus v. Meyer. For 
further discussion of the general principle, I beg to refer the reader to a paper on 
«Some common Crinoid Names, and the Fixation of Nomenclature» (Ann. Mag. 
Nat. Hist., July, 1909). 
If the conclusions of Mr. A. H. Clark (1909) concerning the name Encrinus 
were well founded, that name would have to be employed for the genus including 
Isis asteria Linn. At present most active workers on Crinoidea are agreed to call 
that genus « Isocrinus », and so it is called in the present memoir. For the reasons 
just given 1 do not consider that the name Encrinus can be applied to it. Various 
attempts have been made to subdivide the genus yet further, but our knowledge 
of the Triassic species is not yet enough to enable us to say to which, if any, of 
those subdivisions they should be referred. 
The names Isocrinus and Balanocrinus are further discussed in my paper on 
«Some common Crinoid Names &c.» (1909). 
Under Echinoidea the name Echinocrinus will be observed, used as the equi- 
valent of Archaeocidaris. Full discussion of this will be found in my note: « Echi¬ 
nocrinus versus Archaeocidaris » (Nov. 1907). Here I have only to say that, while 
there can be no doubt as to the consequences of the rules, this seems to me just 
one of those cases that should be settled by a properly constituted authority in 
defiance of the rules. 
The application of the names Eocidaris and Miocidaris has already been 
mentioned under «Systematic', (p. 260) and full discussion will be found in my 
paper on Eocidaris (Jan. 1909). I am glad to learn that Professor R. T. Jackson con- 
curs in my treatment of Eocidaris, which it seems probable will eventually prove 
to be a synonym of Echinocrinus (= Archaeocidaris). 
* «Schulze», says Mr. Clark (1908, p. 517), «was merely repeating the name by which these 
fossils were known to pre-I.innaean authors», he was merely «a Compiler who copied their names». 
This is rather unfair to one who was not only a zoologist of repute, but who had himself written an 
important paper on these particular fossils (1756). 
