87 



in my first paper about the ciliated cups in the dorsal canal of Coma- 

 tula being organs of sense, and in the second paper I never referred to 

 the »corps sphériques« at all. The sarcasms in which P e r r i e r indulges 

 respecting my supposed views, thus lose all their point, or rather, acquire 

 an entirely new one. 



In the January number of the Quarterly Journal of Microscopical 

 Science I have quoted the statements which I really did make, and 

 have explained the marvellous confusion of ideas which has led 

 Perrier to give these totally incorrect and misleading versions of 

 them. 



Not only is he quite extraordinarily careless in his references to 

 his fellow-workers, but he has (as I remarked in August 1885 'f') far 

 too strong a tendency »to make a sweeping generalisation upon data 

 which are either altogether inadequate, or even absolutely incorrect«. 

 An excellent instance of the latter kind is afforded by his statement 

 respecting the presence of radiating cavities at the syzygies of the 

 talked Crinoids. I asked him then to name a single recent talked 

 Crinoid in which the syzygial faces are separated by radiating passageis 

 as in the Comatulae, and there are pores round the outline of the 

 syzygy. 



He has given no answer to my question; so I Avill now repeat it, 

 and add to it another. Can he name a single Blastoid in w^hich there 

 is evidence of a direct communication during life between the body- 

 cavity and the external water? He has recently described a means by 

 which M'ater can penetrate directly into the coelom of a Starfish, while 

 he also believes that in the Urchins and Crinoids its course is regulated 

 by a complex «système de canaux d'irrigation«; and he continues i": 

 . . . »Cela autorise à diviser l'embranchement des Echinodermes en deux 

 grandes groupes, comprenant les Cystidés, les Blastoïdes, les Stellé- 

 rides et les Ophiurides d'une part, les Crinoïdes^ les Echinides, et les 

 Holothurides d'autre part.« On what observations does he rely for this 

 statement about the Blastoidea ? I know of none which can possibly 

 justify this generalisation, and of a great many which directly contra- 

 dict it. 



I cannot but think it a matter for very great regret that a zoologist 

 who is capable of the admirable work expressed in the beautiful illus- 

 trations of Comatula-?a\?iiovLiy which Professor Perrier has lately 

 published, should be so extraordinarily inaccurate in his references 

 to his fellow-workers as I have shown him to be : and that he should 



ifi Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 1SS5. Ser. 5. Vol. XVI. p. II' 

 1' Comptes rendus. T. Cil. 1886. p. 1148. 



