4 



ECHINOIDEA. II. 



accnsation of giatnitous misrepresentation of facts set fortli in one of the most prominent American 

 Periodicals by one of the most famons American Naturalists, I conld not sncceed in "etting it pnb- 

 lished and I must therefore pnblish the necessary remarks here. 



In the introduction to liis memoir Professor A gas si z states that I show but Httle appreciatiou of 

 the work of m>- predecessors, and De Meijere is inchided under this accnsation, since he agrees witli 

 me in regarding the minute microscopical strnctures of pedicellariæ and spicules as of considerable 

 importance for classification. Dr. Mortensen, savs Professor A g a s s i z , practically rejects all the work 

 of liis predecessors and challenges it as worthless becanse it is not based upon his methods for the 

 solution of all Echinological problems. Like all classifications based upon a single character the results 

 obtained culminate in such impossible associations that wc are loath to follow his lead.> — I must 

 protest against the teniper and style of criticism adopted by Dr. Mortensen ; even if he were right, 

 his assumption of omniscience is offensive to the utniost, and his personal remarks are entireh' out 

 of place in a scientific memoir. He concludes these ver\ unrestrained remarks with the following 

 quotation from a newspaper: The results should diminish the patronizing certainty of knowing it all 

 which distinguishes Dr. IMortensen's work, and forbids ns, his predecessors, to discuss matters of which 

 we must be in the nature of the case, whoUy ignorant. 



First, as regards the temper and style of m\- criticism, I must confess my deep regret at having 

 been so unhappy in ni\' mode of expression. I alwavs had and will have a verv great respect for the 

 author of that innnense work The Revision of Ecliini , which must always remain the basis for the 

 study of recent Echinoidea, even though its classification may prove untenable and the descriptions 

 of genera and species more or less unsatisfactory. When my examinatitni of the original material in 

 the British Museum led me to pnblish several corrections of the same autlior's Report on the Chal- 

 lenger -Echinoidea, I always endeavoured to give them in the simplest wa\-, stating onl\- the facts 

 without comment or reproach, but, I confess, also without praise. This procedure, dictated though it 

 was by my respect for the author of tlie Revision of Echini >, has had the unfortunate result that Pro- 

 fe.s.sor Agassiz has taken it as an offensive a.ssumption of omniscience; for it i.s, of cour.se, unreasonable 

 to suppose that the eminent author has been tempted to ascribe offensiveness to the mere demonstra- 

 tion of errors. (_)nce again, I repeat m\- deep regret at this result and can onl)- state that I tried m\- best 

 to avoid expressions which conld be regarded as offensi\-e. If I have been unsuccessful in this respect, 

 that mav perhaps be partly ascribed to the circumstance that my work has been translated from Da- 

 nish, in which language it was written b\- me. Probabh I ma\- not be quite aware of the full significance 

 of all the English expressions used, so that more may sometimes ha\'e been said than I have meant 

 to say. — That the errors fomid out had to be corrected, I think, everybody will agree; in an\- case 

 I deem it the iinconditional duty of every scientist to correct any erroneous statements !ie detects in 

 literature, to pre\ent their goiug on and on in future literature, causing error on error, which will 

 especialh- be the case with such statements occurring in the works of so famous an authorit\- as 

 Professor Agassiz. 



As for the work of my predecessors, when Professor Agassiz states that I practicallv reject the 

 whole of it, challenging it as worthless, becanse it is not based upon my metliods for the solution 

 of all echinological problem.s,» I venture to think that lie does not do me justice. Setting aside for 



