264 



quoted? He must prove it or withdraw it, aud I leave him to decide 

 which course he will take. 



2) Let us now consider his reply on »\e deuxième grief <. 



He attempts to explain away his confusion of my father's obser- 

 vation with that of Müller by saying that one of two words («vertical« 

 or »transverse ') had been »défiguré à l'impression^ ; and he thinks it 

 unfortunate that I did not percieve this. Hoav should I ? Which word 

 is wrong? Does he mean to say that my father found the tentacular 

 canal divided vertically by a vertical partition or transversely by a 

 transverse partition? Will he quote a single passage in Dr. Carpen- 

 ter's memoir of 1866 in which the tentacular canal is described as 

 divided into two portions by any partition at all? He gave no refe- 

 rence in his memoir of 1873 in support of his statement, and I there- 

 fore ask him now to make good the deficiency. The only one partition 

 mentioned by Müller is the vertical one in the tentacular canal; the 

 only partition mentioned by my father is the horizontal one separating 

 this canal from the coeliac canal below it. Until Per ri er can bring 

 forward previous proofs to the contrary I shall adhere to my statement 

 that he did confuse these two structures. It is useless for him to at- 

 tempt to explain the passage Avhich I have quoted by the excuse that 

 one of two words in it has been ))défiguré à l'impression -. Whether this 

 be the case or not, it does not alter the fact that Per ri er attributed 

 to my father a statement which he had never made, and then proceeded 

 to criticise it unfavourably. I am quite ready to apologise to him if 

 he can prove that he did not do so. 



3) Perrier has stated as an excuse for his errors about the arm- 

 canals that my father said nothing about having made any sections of 

 the arms of Comatulae. In reply I directed his attention to three 

 figures which are described as sections of »decalcified arms«. His re- 

 joinder is a curious one. For he speaks of them as representing »pré- 

 parations de parties dures, qu'on peut supposer décalcifiées après coup«. 

 Why should he suppose anything of the kind when it was clearly ex- 

 plained that the sections in question were those of decalcified arms, 

 while another section of an arm with the pinnules attached to which 

 he refers as an excuse for his error was not so described? Does he 

 really wish his fellow-workers to believe him incapable of understan- 

 ding the explanation iu question to mean that the arm was decalcified 

 before the sections were cut? 



It is perfectly true that Dr. Carpenter only figured the dorsal 

 portions of these sections ; but it is none the less true that he spoke of 

 having made them, though Perrier has incorrectly stated that he did 



