58 AMERICAN JOURNAL 



other hand, only one (Oligochgetous) Annelid has been reported 

 (by Ratzel) as having such fiber. The character, however, has 

 no systematic value but is purely histological. 



17. Mr. DalVs startling homology of the peduncle of Lingula 



and the syphonal tube of a clam. 



I have never drawn an}' such homology ; but have showed that 

 the arrangement of the tissues in each is similar and should not 

 be made the basis of any homology which does not include both. 



18. Mr. DalVs statement that because the seta? are not found 

 the entire length of the peduncle, therefore, they are not identical 

 with those of worms. 



I have never made any such statement or entertained any 

 such idea. What I did state will be found in my first paper, 

 and simply shows that being dissimilar, per se, they are, there- 

 fore, not identical. 



19. The bilobed lophophore and cephalic collar. 



The "lophophore " of Brachiopods is by no means universally 

 bilobed, but is trilobed in most of the Terebratulce, and four 

 lobed in Megathyris and Thecidium. If Prof. Morse had studied 

 the articulated brachiopods as thoroughly as he has the inarticu- 

 lated forms, he would not have made this observation. His 

 reference to the "cephalic collar," whatever that may be, is in 

 itself and its bearing on the question, alike inscrutable. 



Prof. Morse complains that I have overlooked the uniseg- 

 mental "Vermes," and the more highly cephalized Annelids, and 

 states that the former form a large proportion of the class. 

 (Which class he refers to is doubtful, certainly it cannot be the 

 Annelids.) But I am unable to see any characters in the forms 

 he refers to which have not already been discussed, or are not of 

 too little significance to have any bearing on the present discus- 

 sion. 



20. The worms are invariably attached to a bivalve or multi- 

 valve shell, whether it be the scuta of Stcrnaspis, the oval plates 

 of Lepidonotus, or the hardened integuments of others. 



It does not seem possible that any modern naturalist should 

 seriously homologize the integument of a worm with the shell of 

 a brachiopod. Such a homology is its own best refutation. As 

 for the rest, where is the "hardened integument " of Planaria, 

 or the Trematoda or the Hirudinos f Where are the muscles by 

 which they are attached to their "bivalve or multivalve shells?" 



