300 • On the Morphology of the Blastoi Jea. 



trouble of reading my little paper carefully lie will be con- 

 vinced that the figures were not taken from Granatocrinus 

 Norwoodi, but that I distinctly said, ' at least in the typical 

 ones, as Pentremites forealis, sulcatus, pyrifbrmis, etc. 1 My 

 Fig. 9, on plate A, represents an oblique section through a 

 fork piece and ambulacral field of P. sulcatus, Fig. 14 an 

 interior view of the same, Fig. 16 an interior view of an am- 

 bulacral field alone. Both figures are taken from P. sulcatus, 

 and show the longitudinal furrow of the lancet piece very well, 

 which has been already observed and described by Romer. 



" As to the second statement he makes, that of having ex- 

 amined the original serving me for my description, I must 

 doubt very much the possibility of this, as I never sent one 

 of my type specimens away or missed them from out of my 

 collection.''' 



There are two points in the above passages on which I 

 would comment. 1. It is all very well for Mr. Hambach to 

 tell us now that figs. 9, 14, & 16 on PI. A of a paper published 

 in 1881 represent portions of Pentremites sulcatus, but it 

 would have been better had he done so before. In his expla- 

 nation of pi. A*, figs. 1,2, 3, 8, 10, and 17 are referred to this 

 species, and no specific name at all is appended to the other 

 eleven figures. Neither is there any mention in the text on 

 the two occasions when he refers to fig. 9, of the species 

 which it illustrates. Seven lines above one reference he 

 alludes to three species of Pentremites, viz. florealis, sulcatus, 

 and pyriformis ; and seven lines below the other there occurs 

 the name P. Norwoodi. Which, if any, of these species 

 furnished the section represented in fig. 9 ? It seemed to me 

 more probable, from the context in the second case, that Mr. 

 Hambach was referring to Pentremites {Granatocrinus) Nor- 

 woodi ; and so I put the name between brackets with a note 

 of interrogation after it. But it now appears that I was 

 wrong ; and for this error of judgment on my part I tender 

 Mr. Hambach my apologies. 



2. If Mr. Hambach " will go to the trouble of reading my 

 little paper carefully he will be convinced " that 1 never 

 claimed to have had the advantage of examining the original 

 specimen which served for his description, as lie makes out. 

 (Several internal casts of P. Norwoodi have been found besides 

 the " well-preserved specimen " described by him, but not 

 seen by me ; and by the liberality of Mr. Wachsmuth I have 

 been enabled to examine a good many of them. But I was 

 never quite so foolish as to state that I had seen Mr. Ham- 

 bach's original, although, in spite of having the best of reasons 

 to the contrary, he twice charges me with having done so ! 



* Trans. St. Louis Acad. vol. iv. 



