44 
the others, although the nerve in question is figured, but apparently 
not described, by Ewarr. — Count 4, to quote Aris, “states that I 
have made a marked error in my work”. The adjective “marked” is 
by the way not mine, as I consider the point to be one of very small 
detail. As however Arrıs enters somewhat fully into it his reply must 
be considered. The facts are that Srannius affirms, and I fully confir- 
med his statement in many dissections, that the accessory lateral passes 
externally to the lateralis. As Anuis stated that it passed internally to 
this nerve, I felt justified in denying the accuracy of his assertion. 
He now adduces the following statements in his own support. On one 
side of the first specimen, the nerve, excepting a small bundle, bears 
out his statement. On one side of another specimen the course of the 
nerve is against him and as I stated, but on the other side of the 
same specimen the nerve is partly external and partly internal to the 
lateralis. The facts therefore, as far as ALLIs now states them, are 
perfectly equally balanced, and no one, I think, on this evidence, could 
possibly say which was the normal condition. Nevertheless, surprising 
as it may seem, Arnis concludes his passage as follows: “I think, 
however, that I can safely maintain the accuracy of the statement made 
by me, notwithstanding the fact that I am in evident opposition to so 
careful a worker as Srannius.” He is further apparently aggrieved 
that I should have accused him of error. Now if anyone were to assert 
that the left carotid of the rabbit arose from the aorta, I should cer- 
tainly reply that he was in error. And if he adduced that small per- 
centage of variation in the position of the artery that undoubtedly 
occurs in support of his assertion, I should accuse him of instituting a 
controversial distinction between a downright error and a statement cal- 
culated to seriously mislead his readers. As matters now stand Arnıs’ 
facts must be regarded as variations, and his statement is therefore 
erroneous for the normal condition, whatever term he chooses to apply 
to his action. — As to count 5 I regret that Arrıs does not frankly 
acknowledge his error and thus obviate a distasteful discussion. That 
he overlooked a very obvious root of considerable morphological import- 
ance in a professedly original description must, I insist, be admitted. 
In extenuation of this he says: “I am also wholly unable to see why, 
in a memoir relating) to Amia, a particular passage should be con- 
sidered faulty simply because I had failed, in it, to fully note or de- 
scribe certain conditions in Gadus that had no direct relation whatever 
to a relatively simple comparison I was seeking to make.” May I ask 
my opponent whether it is his practice in his discussions to introduce 
matter of an inaccurate description and having “no direct relation 
whatever” to those discussions? And is his summary supposed to in- 
clude “relatively simple comparisons”, for this one monopolises a para- 
graph in that portion of his work. But as the homology of the nerves 
in Amia is left obscure, and as that obscurity I venture to think 
would have been cleared up by a recognition of the vagal root of 
Gadus, it appears that the comparison is not so “relatively simple” 
after all, nor has the fact in question “no direct relation whatever” to 
the subject. 
8) Here I am accused of a “most excellent bit of that special 
pleading that can be traced in other parts of Core’s work”. If this 
