76 Itetrospective Criticism* 



" The barbarous nature of these compound Latin and 

 Greek names [mesothorax and metathorax] (which may be 

 remedied by employing the terms medithorax and post- 

 thorax)". — J. O. Westwood. (VI. 495. note f) In what 

 lexicon does Mr. Westwood find thorax absent, and medi and 

 'post present, as Greek words? — Discipidus. Nov. 26. 1833. 



The additional British Species of Cicindela, alluded to, 

 in VI. 533., as being enumerated in p. 55i*., is only a 

 variety (of C. hybrida Linn.), as Mr. Stephens has indicated 

 (p. 554.) by the parenthesis. I am glad to see that Mr. Cur- 

 tis's view of the subject has been adopted by E. N. D., in 

 p. 532., and that he is borne out by the testimony of the 

 Linnaean cabinet. — Corroborator. 



Hypercompa dominula^ the singidar Variety of, described in 

 VI. 540, 541. — The engraving {Jig. 72.) in p. 541. represents 

 the black blotches on the primary wings far too distinct and 

 well defined : these markings, in the real specimen, are by no 

 means so discernible. — W. T. Bree. Nov. 6. 1833. 



Encrinite versus Cyathocrinite (VI. 560., and the pre^ 

 vious Discussions there indicated). — A few additional words 

 appear necessary to set myself right with Mr. Gilbertson. I 

 cannot exactly comprehend Mr. Gilbertson's description, at 

 p. 561. He says, " the line of dots from a terminates at the 

 alimentary canal ; that from b, upon one of the five plates sur- 

 rounding it, which form the pelvis ; c is placed upon the 

 costals," &c. Now, according to this description, I find (as 

 I am able to understand it) that the pelvis, in this specimen, 

 formed a circle of less circumference than the vertebral 

 column, and, consequently, was entirely hid by it. Is this 

 fact, or is it error ? Is this ever known to be the case in any 

 crinoideal animal? It is not the case in any of those figured 

 or described by Miller, nor in any instance that has come 

 under my own immediate observation. Mr. Gilbertson pro- 

 ceeds to say, that, in my figure, " the whole of the pelvis, and 

 nearly the whole of the costals, are hid by the column." 

 This, I presume, is erroneous : if the enlargement of the 

 column, in my specimen, is natural, and not formed of extra- 

 neous matter, I think the above statement of Mr. Gilbertson 

 would not be in accordance with the facts in our possession 

 upon the subject. Does it not always follow, as a matter of 

 course, that, where the column is enlarged and expanded at 

 its junction with the pelvis, the pelvis is also widened and 

 enlarged in the same proportion ? as in the genus Apocrinites. 

 This, I think, cannot be denied. The relative size of the 

 bones, in my specimen, will, I think, prove that this opinion 

 of Mr. Gilbertson is not tenable. The scapula (according to 



