NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF GLASGOW. 2G 



Q 



lation of the liooklets upon tubercles could not be held as tenable, 

 and he agreed with Mr Armstrong and myself in viewing them as 

 solid processes that had become fractured from the stem by 

 pressure. 



Dr Young, in his note to the editor of the Magazine, says, 

 " Mr De Wilde's letter is quite satisfactory. Had the appearances 

 referred to by Mr Young been present in Dr Duncan's specimens, 

 neither he nor Mr De Wilde would have failed to notice them. 

 It is therefore to be regretted that you did not submit Mr Young's 

 specimens to that artist, who has an interest in the matter, rather 

 than to Mr Fielding, who has none. The testimony which that 

 gentleman volunteers is, however, of A^alue, as confirming the only 

 inference possible from the statements and figures, that the speci- 

 mens of Heterophijllia are variously preserved, and that Mr De 

 Wilde has not seen all the varieties." 



Dr Young, in reply to Mr Woodward's remarks, says, " I am 

 unaware, of course, of your reasons for adopting a somewhat 

 unusual style of comment on Mr Young's paper. He does not, 

 however, as you say, 'object to a discovery because it is an 

 anomaly.' He thinks the appearances may be otherwise in- 

 terpreted, and that so unexpected a phenomenon as articulated 

 spines on a coral requires more evidence in its support than has 

 been adduced. Anomalies, in other groups of animals, furnish 

 no argument in support of this particular one. Mr Young 

 thinks his specimens justify him in taking excei^tion to Dr 

 Duncan's paper on two grounds: 1st. That H. LijelU and H. 

 mirahilis are not distinct species; 2d. That neither possessed 

 articulated spines. The criticism of published species is neither 

 an unusual nor a hurtful proceeding, and I should have been 

 unwilling to interfere in the matter, which rests entirely between 

 Dr Duncan and Mr Young, but having seen the specimens, I am 

 satisfied that the difference of opinion, at least on the second of 

 Mr Young's criticisms, is due to difference in the state of preser- 

 vation of the fossils." 



In my reply to the statements of Messrs De Wilde and Fielding, 

 I mentioned, amongst other points, that " the mere rounding of 

 the base of the spines, so as to resemble tubercles, seen upon 

 some specimens, stands for nothing in the face of the important 

 fact which numerous others go to prove, viz., that these tubercles 



