285 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Huxley's Eyes. 



Permit me to correct Professor T. Jeffery Parker's slip in speaking of Huxley's 

 " grey eyes." Huxley's eyes — that is, the iris thereof — were what is called black — 

 really a very dark brown. It would have been inconsistent with his strongly 

 melanochroic character that his eyes should be grey. 



In Huxley's old age a strongly marked arcus senilis developed, so as to obscure 

 somewhat the pigment of the iris, and his eyebrows, long as black as ebony, 

 became grey ; but that his late assistant should call his eye " grey " is a curious lapse 

 of memory. E. Kay Lankester. 



" PeRIPATUS " AND THE "CAMBRIDGE NATURAL HiSTORY." 



It appears to me that the difference of opinion between Professor Sedgwick 

 and myself touching the advisability of assigning names to the genera of Peripa- 

 tidae that he has characterised is a subject scarcely worthy of serious discussion. 



To hold with him that the action I took in the matter " brings no benefit, and 

 only adds unnecessarily to the nomenclature of the group," evinces a surprising 

 lack of appreciation of the significance and utility of nomenclature. I maintain, 

 on the contrary, that the ascription of a number of species so diversified in distri- 

 bution, development, and anatomy to one genus represents their relationship in a 

 light that is altogether false ; and that the benefit gained by adopting a separate 

 generic title for each of the three sections into which the species fall is strictly 

 comparable to that gained by adopting such titles for t he Anthropomorphous Apes, 

 or for the " groups " of fresh-water crayfishes. It is, however, reassuring to be 

 told of Professor Sedgwick's horror of adding unnecessarily to the nomenclature 

 of the Peripatidse, for one certainly would not have looked for any unwillingness 

 on that score in an author who deliberately published two new and wholly un- 

 necessary names for a couple of species which he was perfectly well aware had 

 already been named by his predecessors. 



The next statement in Professor Sedgwick's " Apologia " that concerns me runs 

 as follows : " I read Mr. Pocock's paper when it came out, and so far from finding 

 that he added to our knowledge of the g.enus, it appeared to me that his own know- 

 ledge of the facts already established was not up-to-date in at least one important 

 particular." Before committing himself to the first part of this indictment, it is a 

 pity Professor Sedgwick did not study my paper with a little more care. For, since 

 it fell to my lot to point out almost all that we do know of the specific characters of 

 specimens of Peripatus from St. Vincent, referable to P. iulifoymis, Guilding, which 

 had been lost sight of nearly half-a-century, his attempt to make his readers believe 

 that my paper contained no contribution to our knowledge — putting upon it the 

 most charitable construction possible, and acquitting its author of all malicious 

 intent — amounts to nothing more than a confession of carelessness on his part for 

 not finding in my paper this addition, and others that could be pointed out. 



The second part of the charge contains Professor Sedgwick's alleged excuse for 

 not mentioning my work. Well, I am quite willing to do penance for any sins I 

 may have committed, if Professor Sedgwick will have the kindness to point out on 

 what substratum of fact my appearance or appearances of ignorance rest. But I 

 would submit that even if an author's knowledge of established facts be demonstrably, 

 and not merely apparently, behind the times in " at least one important particular," 

 that is to my mind no valid excuse for ignoring all the facts established and sugges- 

 tions put forward in his paper. I do not presume to dispute Professor Sedgwick's 



