lO ECHINOIDEA. II. 



anv striking degree resemble the figure given b\- Agassiz. It is no Porocidaris-. — Here foUows a 

 description of the pedicellariæ and spines of the specimen. — Perhaps the specimen of Porocidaris 

 Sharrrri nientioned b\- Agassiz (9. p. 13) which was of a light greenish pink color when aU\-e, the 

 spines white with a deHcate brownish-pink base is identical with the specimen described here — in 

 this case this specimen mentioned by Agassiz has certainly not been of the same species as the one 

 lie figures; but this latter mnst, of conrse, keep the name of Sliaryrri. There can be no doubt that 

 the specimen described here is a new species: whether it is also to be regarded as a new genus, or 

 belongs to Dorocidaris, can only be decided, when the s\stematic significance of the spines has been 

 established. For the present it ought to be classed with Dorocidaris under the name of v9. w./trt//j n. sp. 

 Now I really must ask, what is the misrepresentatiou of which I am accused in tliis passage? I have 

 not in the slightest way credited Professor Agassiz with the erroneons determination of the specimens 

 sent to me from the I'. S. National Museum or seen by nie in the British Museum ' — and I am 

 unable to see what else can be the meaningof the accusation. Professor Agassiz also makes a similar 

 accusation in another case (p. 85): Dr. Mortensen holds me responsible for the Identification of speci- 

 mens of Ph(orinoso7iia) uramis and P//. Pctcrsii sent h\ the Smithsonian (National Museum) to the 

 Copenhagen Museum and to Professor Koehler. I must repeatagain that I know nothing of the speci- 

 mens collected by the Albatross in the Atlantic after the publication of the <Challenger Echini. — 

 I also must repeat again that I lia\e not held or thought of holding Professor Agassiz responsible for the 

 Identification of those specimens, and to this statement everyone must agree who will take the trouble 

 to read my remarks ou this matter (Part I. p. 58 — 59). I beg, therefore, to suggest to Professor Agassiz 

 that he must have laboured under a misapprehension when accusing me of gratuitous misrepresen- 

 tatiou of facts ; and I hope he will now do me the honour to recognize that, so far from there being 

 a gratuitous misrepresentatiou, there was no misrepresentatiou at all. 



Before entering on a discussiou of the more detailed critici-sms found in the work of Professor 

 Agassiz I would on general grounds protest against the denunciation of my classification as based 

 on a .single character . On the contrary, every effort has been made to do justice to all available 

 characters. Researches ou the classificator\' value of the characters found in the different structures 

 led uie to believe that the pedicellariæ were of .special importance, but I did not beforehand plan that 

 the classification should be based ou those orgau.s, as might be gathered from the foUowing sentence 

 of Professor Agassiz: Ur. Mortensen planned what he modesth' calls a ]:)rofouud- and careful at- 

 tempt at penetrating iuto the uiysteries of the relationship of the Echinoids based upon a stud)- of 

 the pedicellariæ . (Op. cit. p. 106.I The continuation of the quotation from my work (p. 3) runs thus: — 

 and the plan was the simple, but clear oue: to let litterature alone for the present, while the animals 

 were studied thoroughly. Ever\tliing had to be examined, that might ui an\ wa>- be supposed to show 

 s\-stematic characters: the test, the spines, the tube-feet, the pedicellariæ, the spicules, the sphæridiæ 

 etc. Auyoue who will take the trouble to look at m\- diagnoses of, for e.xample, the genera of Eclii- 



' I may ,say that iu the U. S. National Museum I founil a specimen from the -Blakei 187S — 79 (No. 151. Off 

 Nevis. 356 fathoms) named Porocidaris Sharreri, which is really Stereocidarix ingolfiana. This specimen has evideiitly been 

 identified by Prof. Agassiz and thus proves that he has also made that error, of which I did not accuse him. but which 

 he so ardently rejects. 



^ Perhaps the word -..profoundi. has not quite the same meanin.n as tlir Danisli word Krundij; used in this place; 

 at least, the Danish word does not sound inunodest. 



