86 



and their results have been confirmed by the section method. ])Ut this 

 second system of vessels, m ith its oral ring and radial extensions had 

 altogether escaped the notice of Prof. P erri er, who had limited him- 

 self to the injection method without properly controlling his results by 

 the use of sections. 



So much then for Perriers statement that I have been the oppo- 

 nent of all the works published in France upon the Echinoderms. I 

 will now pass on to explain Avhat he calls the «simple tendance qui se 

 révèle dans les critiques d'Herbert Carpenter«. 



I freely confess that (apart altogether from the question of the vas- 

 cular system of the Urchins) I have published some strong criticism 

 of Perrier's work during the last three years. But I have not done so 

 without good reason. He has frequently committed himself to state- 

 ments which he would scarcely have made, had he taken the trouble 

 to become sufficiently acquainted Avith the work of his predecessors. 

 Thus for example, early in 1883, he established a new genus of Crinoids, 

 [Democrinus) on the very character which had been pointed out as dis- 

 tinctive 0Î RMzo crimes by Pourtalès in 1868 and 1874, and by my- 

 self in 1877 and 1882; though copies of both my own papers were sent 

 to Prof. Perrier. He has since admitted the justice of my criticisms 

 by tacitly withdrawing a generic (and also a specific) name with which 

 zoological literature should never have been burdened. 



From his very first essay in 1873 to his latest one in 1886, 

 Perrier's publications on the Crinoids have contained the most re- 

 markably incorrect versions of statements made by his fellow- workers '^. 

 I have already noticed his confusion of two entirely distinct observa- 

 tions by Müller and my father respectively, in 1873. I published last 

 year a number of corrections of the blunders which he had made in an 

 article on my Report on the Challenger Crinoidea^^ ] and I now select 

 one of many erroneous references to the writings of Ludwig, myself, 

 and others which have appeared in his latest publication. 



On p. I 33 Avhen criticising my two papers of 13 76, he says of the 



first: »Les corbeilles vibratiles du canal dorsal et les corps 



sphériques des bras lui paraissent être des organes des sens;*' and of 

 the second : . . . . »Les corps sphériques y sont désignés sans point de 

 doute comme des , organes des sens' problématiques. (f 



Of the three statements contained in these two sentences two are 

 absolutely false, and one greatly exaggerated. I never said a Avord 



'•* A reference to the writings of Bell and of SI a den upon the Starfishes will 

 show that others besides myself have been obliged to comment upon Perriers in- 

 accuracy. 



i-^' Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 18S5. Ser. 5. Vol. XVI. p. 100—119. 



