263 



vessel ill Antedoìi rosacea. At the same time Ludwig, as other na- 

 turalists had privately done, expressed his inability to accept my fa- 

 ther's views about the nervous system. The result was that nearly 

 three months afterwards (March, 1876) I wrote a short paper contai- 

 ning the results of my own observations on the Philippine Comatula, 

 which afforded me the means of reconciling the conflicting statements 

 of my father, Semper, and Ludwig. At the same time I brought for- 

 ward important additional evidence for the truth of my father's state- 

 ments about the nervous system, which had been publicly called in 

 question by Perrier and Ludwig, and also, though I did not then 

 knoAV it, by G r e e ff. My references to Perrier were of a studiously 

 courteous character, and he has neglected to reply to my request that 

 he would name one single passage which can possibly justify his asser- 

 tion that I had formed the deliberate intention of attacking his work. 

 He only refers his readers again to the preface to the Challenger report, 

 and to his own interpretation of it. Unfortunately, however, he has 

 made yet another incorrect statement upon Avhich the whole question 

 turns. Were this assertion only true, there might be some reason in 

 his interpretation of my remarks that > some of my father's statements 

 respecting the anatomy of the arms having been called in question, I 

 was led to reinvestigate the matter^«. Perrier has thought fit to inter- 

 pret this passage as applying exclusively to himself. He is of course 

 unaware of all the criticisms of my father's views which had been made 

 in private both to him and to myself. But he entirely ignores Semper's 

 work of 1874, but for Avhich I should never have commenced to study 

 theComatulae at all, as I have already explained. He also forgets G r e e ff s 

 observations at Naples in 1874, these were not published, however, till 

 January, 1876, and that Ludwig wrote his first note in 1875; and he 

 calmly states thathe,EdmondPer ri er, was »encore seul, en 1875, à avoir 

 repris les observations de W. B. Carpenter sur les comatulesff. His 

 conclusion is that «Herbert Carpenter entrait donc dans la carrière 

 scientifique en fourbissant soigneusement ses armes dans l'intention 

 préméditée d'attaquer mon premier travail sur les Crinoïdes«. 



I repeat again that his statement is untrue, and I challenge him 

 to prove it. Had I been actuated by the unworthy motive which he 

 ascribes to me, it would have been easy to fill, not one but half a dozen 

 pages, by exposing his blunders. Did I do so? Will he name one 

 single passage in my first publication of 187 G or in any subsequent one 

 lip to 1883 ' which can possibly justify the statement that I have just 



1 I mention this date because Perrier now says that since 1883 I have been 

 attackinsr his works. But he is silent as to 1875, the date he fixed at first. 



