1913] The Ottawa Naturalist. 83 



XII. Mr. Xarraway's very kind second loan of the type 

 has^enabled me to make a number of stereograms of it, and since 

 returning the specimen to him, I have found three among them 

 that offer more important evidence concerning the nature of the 

 aboral skeleton than I had before noted. In plate VIII, fig. 1 , the 

 present floor of the oral cavity shows a number of very small 

 ossicles having diameters of between 0. 10 and 0.15 mm. These 

 are most clearly seen around the inner margin of the ''torus," 

 in interradius 1. To the right of the whiter of these ossicles 

 there are a number of darker molds or thinly covered ossicles 

 having similar diameters and an alternate arrangement. The 

 half tone process will hardly allow these to be seen, but in plate 

 IX, fig. 2, thin, angled plates with a diameter of 0.2 mm should 

 lie visible on the dark background of the upper part of the figure. 

 A transverse row of three of these will be found just above the 

 last adambulacral and marginal at the right. There is also one 

 quite clearly revealed two centimeters (measured on the stereo- 

 gram) above the right-hand marginal and on a line with its inner 

 face. These plates are very regularly arranged and each has a 

 small central projection about 0.03 mm in diameter. Twenty- 

 five or more of these plates can be recognized in the photographs 

 from which this figure is produced. There is a median row of 

 slightly larger plates, and on each side of this at least five other 

 rows arranged in regular alternation. A number of the same 

 plates may also be seen near the end of ray IV. As P. narrawayi 

 can hardly have had its oral skeleton sandwiched between two 

 aboral skeletons, I think this case does not need further argument . 



Dr. Raymond in his criticism has kindly sought to share a 

 responsibility for my errors and to make Mr. Xarraway assist 

 him in this, by frequently using the pronouns "we" and "our" 

 to represent an offending trio who persisted in their error even 

 though (p. 105, line 24) "it must be confessed, all dissented from 

 our view." This use of these pronouns is misleading. Dr. 

 Raymond had a manuscript copy of my paper before its publica- 

 tion and duplicates of some of my photomicrographs. My 

 experience with "paleontologists and students of recent echin- 

 oderms" was not as he unwittingly represents it. On p. 106,' 

 lines 28-32, he states: "The chief reason that Xarraway, 

 Hudson and myself had for thinking that Protopaloeaster 

 narrawayi was exposed from the actinal side was that the cover- 

 ing pieces did not look like ambulacral plates, **#*"_ Here 

 again I believe the statement would have gained in accuracy 

 had the first two names been omitted. It must be evident at 

 least that Dr. Ravmond did not know my reasons. To Mr. 

 Xarraway is due the credit of recognizing the true character 

 of the "covering pieces." Aside from agreeing with him in this, 



