NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF GLASGOW. 265 



assumption of anchylosis of the joint, I stated, "that it entirely 

 begged the question, and that after what I had written I thought 

 I was justified in disputing assertions, however authoritatively 

 stated." 



I may here remark that Dr Duncan's admission, that probably 

 the bases of the spines had become anchylosed upon the tubercles, 

 and that the joint had been destroyed, is to me one of the 

 weakest points in his whole argument; and I think that it must 

 be apparent to nearly every one that it would have been better, 

 and perhaps more honest, if he had frankly admitted that he had 

 been mistaken as to the articulation of the booklets, and acknow- 

 ledged them at once as having been solid appendages, instead of 

 making a half admission that they are really so, by his assumption 

 of anchylosis of the joint. 



With regard to his statement, that this coral was allowed to lie 

 in the Hunterian Museum, under the name of Serjmlce, it shows 

 that he must have been misinformed upon the subject. The 

 museum, as yet, has never possessed any examples of this 

 organism. My remarks are founded upon specimens in my 

 own collection and that of Mr Armstrong. In the list of fossils 

 in my paper on the "Geology of the Campsie District," page 57, 

 I there state that " finely preserved specimens of this organism 

 are found in tlie shales of Craigenglen; that they agree ex- 

 ternally with M'Coy's figure of Serpuloe (?) hexicarinata, but are 

 probably zoophytes, as they are divided internally with septa 

 and tabulae, and have numerous slender hook-like spines on each 

 of the keels." 



To show still further that I was not entii^ely ignorant of the 

 structure of this organism, I have here a transparent vertical 

 section of the coral which I exhibited, along with my collection, 

 at the British Association Meeting in Glasgow in 1855. I also, 

 while in London in 1861, submitted some of my specimens to 

 Mr Salter, then in the Jermyn Street Museum, and to the late 

 Dr Samuel Woodwai-d, of the British Museum. They both 

 agreed with me as to its close identity Avith M'Coy's figure of 

 Serpulce hexicarinata (a point which Dr Duncan in his description 

 has overlooked) ; but they were satisfied, from both the external 

 and internal structure, that it was not any species of SerpidcB, but 

 a peculiar and undescribed zoophyte. The idea, however, of its 



