257 



deliberately passed over without a word of comment, while nearly the 

 whole critique is devoted to the theoretical part of my paper. 



On p. 543, I warned the reader at considerable length not to 

 regard the statement of my theoretical views as dogmatic assertions, 

 explaining that while conscious of the uncertain ground upon which 

 I trod, I desired to make my statements positive that the reader might 

 clearly apprehend my interpretation of the facts. Moreover on p. 705, 

 I took pains to say that the theoretical remarks of Chapter VI must be 

 regarded as »suggestions« for which I could bring no proof. Had Prof. 

 Lankester read these statements, I can hardly believe that he would 

 have accused me of »laying down the law in a presumptuous manner<( 

 or of »making dogmatic statements apparently unconscious of my in- 

 ability to prove them«. 



2) On p. 290, Prof. Lankester quotes the following from my 

 paper : »We must admit that the possibility of regarding the phao- 

 sphere, found in Euscorpius Italiens by Lankester, as an aborted 

 nucleus is not so remote as he would have us believe.« Lankester 

 then adds: »Whether the phaosphere can possibly be an aborted 

 nucleus, or not, may be an open question. It is but another instance 

 of Patten's extraordinary inaccuracy when he states that Lankester 

 would have us believe anything on the subject. The matter was not 

 discussed by Lankester at all.« Whether Prof. Lankester would 

 have us believe anything on the subject, or not, may be seen from his* 

 own words. On p. 156 of his paper on the eyes of Scorpions, we find 

 the following statement : »At the same time it is to be observed 

 that the axial rod of the Spiders nerve-end cell must be 

 considered as representing not only the phaosphere, but 

 also the laterally placed rhabdomere of the nerve-end 

 cells of the Scorpion's eye.« 



3) In my paper, I referred to the five-fold colorless cells, or retino- 

 phorae, of the lateral eyes of Scorpions. Prof. Lankester says of this 

 statement: »Patten quite recklessly attributes to other authorities on 

 the Arthropod eye statements with regard to the presence or absence 

 of pigment in the nerve-end cells which are the reverse of those made 

 by the gentlemen in question. (f Graber's name was mentioned to 

 give him credit for having discovered the five-fold nature of the rod- 

 bearing cells. The »nerve-end« cells of the central eyes were described 

 and figured diagrammatically by Lankester as colorless, while 

 he states that in the lateral eyes the pigment is confined to the sur- 

 face of the »nerve-end« cells. My statement would have been entirely 

 correct had I spoken of the colorless cells of the median eyes as de- 

 scribed by Lankester. Prof. Lankester, in the fairminded spirit 



