Retrospective Criticism, 



115 



you have added to my 

 title-page, it must ap- 

 pear to the generality 

 of naturalistSjas merely 

 adding a new species 

 of that familiar tribe to 

 our stock of know- 

 ledge. By a reference 

 to the memoir itself, 

 you will perceive this 

 error, which I do not 

 complain of individu- 

 ally, but on account 

 pf the injury done to 

 the advancement of 

 science, by thus repre- 

 senting a discovery of 

 the very first import- 

 ance as the accession 

 of a new species ofj 

 listerias, star- fish. {Jig. 

 29.) 



The animal, which forms the subject of my memoir, although related to 

 the Jsterias by analogy, belongs to what must now be considered a very 

 distinct tribe ^ distinguished, amongst other characters, by being provided 

 with two openings to the alimentary canal^ that which is central being ana- 

 logous to the mouth {fig. 28. a.), and the lateral one to the anus (6), of 

 the /Spatangi and other ^Echini (sea urchins) : this tribe had been already 

 designated by the term Crinoidea (lily-like), by Mr. Millar, in his valuable 

 monograph on these curious and interesting animals, which, with the ex- 

 ception of Marsupites {marsupium, a purse) and Comatula {coma, a tuft), 

 are all provided with a long stem, by means of which they have been per- 

 manently attached to the rocks at the bottom of the ocean. I say have 

 been, because the greater part of those known to naturalists are fossils, 

 mostly identified with the beds of limestone in which they are found. 



Until the fortunate discovery of the species described in my memoir, 

 naturalists were absolutely ignorant of the real nature of these animals, 

 and, consequently, extremely divided as to the situation they should occupy 

 in their systems, so much so as even to be in doubt whether they really 

 belonged to the animal kingdom. I flatter myself, therefore, that I have 

 set at rest all disputes upon the subject, and have, at the same time, 

 pointed out so much of their natural history as to prevent the otherwise un- 

 avoidable multiplication of species and even of genera. My memoir goes 

 further, and confirms the statement of Mr. Adams {Lin. Trans, vol. v. p. lo.) 

 on ^steria pectinata, as to Comatula possessing a similar construction 

 of the alimentary canal ; a fact which lay dormant and unnoticed by natu- 

 ralists until it again fell under my observation, which I find by my journal 

 to be dated June 2. 1823. It appears to have been again noticed by Mr. 

 Gray, and published in the Annals of Philosophy for November 1826., 

 p. 392., in an article on the digestive organs of the Comatula ; that gentle- 

 man was also the first to throw out a conjecture that the Crinoidea were 

 probably constructed upon the same plan. — J. V. Thompson, F. L. S. 

 Cork, Aug. 10. 1828. 



Derivation of the name John Doree. — I take the liberty of suggesting 

 another derivation than that given in your First Number, p. 89. for the John 

 Dory or Doree. You there state that it is called Doree, as a corruption " from 

 adoree, worshipped ; or probably from doree, gilt, in allusion to its splendid 

 colour," &c. &c. It is universally styled " II janitore," or the gate-keeper, 



I 2 « 



