IO 



RCHINOIDEA. II. 



any striking degree resemble the figure given by Agassiz. It is no Porocidaris . — Here follows a 

 description of the pedicellarise and spines of the specimen. — Perhaps the specimen of Porocidaris 

 Sharrcri mentioned bv Agassiz (9. p. 13) which was of a light greenish pink color when alive, the 

 spines white with a delicate brownish-pink base is identical with the specimen described here -- in 

 this case this specimen mentioned by Agassiz has certainly not been of the same species as the one 

 he figures; but this latter must, of course, keep the name of Sharreri. There can be no doubt that 

 the specimen described here is a new species: whether it is also to be regarded as a new genus, or 

 belongs to Dorocidaris, can only be decided, when the systematic significance of the spines has been 

 established. For the present it ought to be classed with Dorocidaris under the name of D. micans u. sp. 

 Now I really must ask, what is the misrepresentation of which I am accused in this passage? I have 

 not in the slightest way credited Professor Agassiz with the erroneous determination of the specimens 

 sent to me from the U. S. National Museum or seen by me in the British Museum ' — and I am 

 unable to see what else can be the meaning of the accusation. Professor Agassiz also makes a similar 

 accusation in another case (p. 85): Dr. Mortensen holds me responsible for the identification of speci- 

 mens of Ph(ormosoma) uranus and Ph. Petersii sent by the Smithsonian (National Museum) to the 

 Copenhagen Museum and to Professor Koehler. I must repeat again that I know nothing of the speci- 

 mens collected by the Albatross in the Atlantic after the publication of the Challenger Echini. 

 I also must repeat again that I have not held or thought of holding Professor Agassiz responsible for the 

 identification of those specimens, and to this statement everyone must agree who will take the trouble 

 to read my remarks on this matter (Parti, p. 58 — 59). I beg, therefore, to suggest to Professor Agassiz 

 that he must have laboured under a misapprehension when accusing me of gratuitous misrepresen- 

 tation of facts ; and I hope he will now do me the honour to recognize that, so far from there being 

 a gratuitous misrepresentation, there was no misrepresentation at all. 



Before entering on a discussion of the more detailed criticisms found in the work of Professor 

 Agassiz I would on general grounds protest against the denunciation of my classification as based 

 on a single character . On the contrarv, everv effort has been made to do justice to all available 

 characters. Researches on the classificatory value of the characters found in the different structures 

 led me to believe that the pedicellariae were of special importance, but I did not beforehand plan that 

 the classification should be based on those organs, as might be gathered from the following sentence 

 of Professor Agassiz: Dr. Mortensen planned what he modestly calls a profound 2 and careful at- 

 tempt at penetrating into the mvsteries of the relationship of the Kchinoids based upon a study of 

 the pedicellarise . (Op. cit. p. 106.) The continuation of the quotation from my work (p. 3) runs thus: — 

 and the plan was the simple, but clear one: to let litterature alone for the present, while the animals 

 were studied thoroughly. Everything had to be examined, that might in any way be supposed to show 

 systematic characters: the test, the spines, the tube-feet, the pedicellaria;, the spicules, the sphseridue 

 etc. Anyone who will take the trouble to look at my diagnoses of, for example, the genera of Echi- 



1 l may say that in the U. S. National Museum I found a specimen from the -Blake 187S — 79 (No. 151. off 

 Nevis. 356 fathoms) named Porocidaris Sharreri, which is really Siereocidaris ingolfiana. This specimen has evidently been 

 identified by Prof. Agassiz and thus proves that he has also made that error, of which I did not accuse him, but which 

 he so ardently rejects. 



■ Perhaps the word profound has not quite the same meaning as the Danish word igrutldig used in this place; 

 at least, the Danish word does not sound immodest. 



