43 
prise that I should homologise a sense organ situated in one ossicle 
with a sense organ found in another. It is indeed difficult to be con- 
sistent, and I note with surprise that in the very next paragraph he 
homologises (“probably”) a sense organ in Scomber situated in the 
hind end of the squamosal with one in Gadus situated between the 
supratemporal ossicles 2 and 3. 
6) I have read the passage in question over again (p. 627—628) 
and still affirm that it is not a consistent view of the case. It is true 
the word “probably” occurs, but the comparison with A mia which follows 
is in some detail, so that the value of the “probable” is somewhat dis- 
counted. If however I modify my statement so as to assert that ALLIs 
provisionally rejects the canal as a lateral line structure in Polypterus, 
but provisionally accepts it as such in Clarias and Auchenaspis, 
I should be more correctly conveying his meaning, but the inconsistency 
would still be there. With regard to my statement that the canals in 
question are “exactly the same”, and the quotation from me re Poly- 
pterus, I must re-affirm that as far as the meagre descriptions of POLLARD 
go any other conclusion is out of the question, and as to the Poly- 
pterus quotation, it is still another instance of a remark divorced 
from its context. I may affirm that the canal A is the same as the 
canal B, without being able to determine the precise relation of both 
to another system of canals of another nature, Auris concludes by 
remarking that it is a “pure supposition” to homologise the “lateralis” 
nerve of Petromyzon with the ramus lateralis accessorius. It is something 
more than a supposition — it is probable. It rests upon a very fair 
basis of fact, and is moreover a conclusion, as Professor Jupson HERRICK 
remarked to me in a letter, that most workers on the subject have ar- 
rived at quite independently. This alone, apart from the facts in sup- 
port of it that Srrone and myself have elsewhere adduced, raises it 
above the level of a “pure supposition”. I shall be interested to learn how 
these same facts are met by Arrıs. In the meantime I must protest 
against a carefully argued homology being summarily rejected without 
any discussion. 
7) As counts 1 and 2 of my criticism are admitted by ALLIs I 
need make no further reference to them. When I stated in the foot- 
note quoted by him that I omitted reference to text bookst), it simply 
meant that I assumed my readers, as professional zoologists, would be 
at least as well acquainted with them as myself. I do not yet see how 
this simple reference can be manipulated by my opponent into a justi- 
fication of his ignorance of these works. His quotation from p. 173 of 
my work is intended to convey the impression that I was quietly claim- 
ing a homology as my own which was in fact stated by my opponent 
himself. It will I think surprise most readers when I point out that 
the last sentence of the same paragraph containes an admission that 
Aırıs had recognised these homologies. —- Count 3 probably holds 
good but it should not, I admit, have been allowed to rank with 
1) It must not be forgotten that the branches to the pelvic fin 
were described by Srannius, so that here again Arııs’ explanation fails 
to meet the case. I did not however mention Srannius, because I was 
referring to an older author — Swan. 
