4*72 Retrospective Criticism, 



referred to as attached to the pelvis, I now consider as 

 extraneous matter, and have, therefore, rejected, merely 

 pointing out its situation and form by a dotted line. From 

 beneath this mass are seen to project two small angular bones, 

 one on the extreme left, and the other in the centre ; these I 

 consider to be the exposed part of the pelvis. On the right 

 will now be found three large bones slipped out of their 

 places, and evidently being the first and second costal bones, 

 and the scapula. These bones lie in a horizontal line across 

 the figure. Attached to one side of this scapula, and in a 

 perpendicular line through the centre of the figure, will be 

 found three other bones, necessarily those of the arm ; and 

 upon the upper bone of this series (the cuneiform bone of 

 the arm) is evidently placed the hand. The other portions 

 are too imperfect to be made outj and the fingers in the 

 illustration have, therefore, been supplied by analogy. I 

 think I can safely appeal to the judgment of the reader as to 

 my not having used trickery in the reconstruction of my 

 specimen. I think I have made use of no materials but such 

 as were evidently placed before me ,* and I think I have used 

 them fairly and rationally. I have not moved them from 

 their relative situation unnecessarily. I have neither added 

 to, nor taken from, their number. The number of bones, 

 and their forms, I have endeavoured to preserve most scru- 

 pulously : all that I have altered is their relative situations : 

 and I think I have gone on by a process of regular and 

 simple analogy, in giving them their several positions. My 

 object is to illustrate truth, not to support theory. But I am 

 almost forgetting myself r we are now to consider the forms 

 of the bones. The scapula, in the encrinite, is destined to 

 support two arms, and therefore must, of necessity, be of 

 considerable breadth in proportion to its height. In the 

 Encrinites moniliformis, as figured by Miller, I find this 

 proportion to be as one to three ; and it is exactly the same 

 in my specimen. It follows, also, of necessity, that the costal 

 bones should have a width proportionate to the scapula in 

 the encrinite, because the scapula rests immediately and 

 entirely upon the costal, and the second costal upon the first. 

 In the cyathocrinite, on the contrary, this necessity does not 

 exist ; for the seapula rests, not upon a costal bone, but upon 

 the lateral faces of two costals ; and, besides, there is, in this 

 species, an interscapular bone, so that the proportion in 

 width between the scapulae and the costae is not necessary. 

 In the Encrinkes moniliformis I find the proportion between 

 the height and the width of the costae to be as one to five ; 

 and in my specimen it is as one to four. In the Cyathocri- 



