ECHINOIDEA. II. 



accusation of gratuitous misrepresentation of facts;^ set forth in one of the most prominent American 

 Periodicals by one of the most famous American Naturalists, I could not succeed in getting it pub- 

 lished and I must therefore publish the necessar\- remarks here. 



In the introduction to his memoir Professor Agassi z states that 1 show but little appreciation of 

 the work of mv predecessors, and De Meijere is included under this accu.sation, since he agrees with 

 me in re"-arding the minute microscopical structures of pedicellaria; and spicules as of considerable 

 importance for classification. Dr. Morten.sen, says Prof es.sor A g a s s i z , practically rejects all the work 

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

 solution of all E^chinological 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 temper and st>le of criticism adopted by Dr. ^Mortensen ; even if he were right, 

 his assuni{)li()U of omniscience is offensixe to the utmost, and his personal remarks are entireK out 

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

 quotation fron\ a uew.spaper: The results should diminish the patronizing certainty of knowing it all 

 which distinguishes Dr. Mortensen's work, and forbids us, his predecessors, to discuss matters of whicli 

 we nnist be in the nature of the case, wholly ignorant. 



First, as regards the temper and st\le of m\' criticism, I must confess ni\- deep regret at having 

 been so unhapp\' in my mode of expres.sion. 1 alwavs had and will have a \ery great respect for the 

 author of that immense work The Revision of Echini , which must always remain the basis for the 

 study of recent Echinoidea, even though its classification ma\' prove mitenable and the descriptions 

 of genera and species more or less unsatisfactory. When m\- examination of the original material in 

 the liritish Museum led me \.o publish several corrections of the same author's Report on the Chal- 

 lenger -lu'hinoidea. I alwa\s endeavoured to give them in the siui])lest way, stating onh the facts 

 without eonnnent or reproach, hut, I confess, also without praise. This jjrocedure, dictated though it 

 was b\- uiv respect for the author of the Revision of Ecliiui , has had the unfortunate result that Pro- 

 fessor Agassiz has taken it as an offensive assumption of omniscience; for it is, of course, unreasonable 

 to suppose that the eminent author has been tempted to ascribe offensi\eness to the mere demonstra- 

 tion of errors. Once again, I repeat m\ deep regret at this result and can only slate that I tried m\' best 

 to avoid expressions which could be regarded as offensive. If I have been unsuccessful in this respect, 

 thai may |jerhaps be jiartly ascribed to the circumstance thai ni\ work lias been translated from Da- 

 nish, in which language it was written b\' me. Probably I ma\- not be (juile aware of the full significance 

 of all the Pinglish expressions used, so ihat more may sometimes have been said than 1 have meant 

 to say. — Thai the errors found onl had to be corrected, I lliiuk, ever\bod\' will agree; in auv case 

 I deem it Uk- uiicondiiioual dul\ of every scientist t<_> correct au\- erroneous statements he detects in 

 literature, to preveiU their going on and on in future literature, causing error on error, which will 

 especial!)- be the case with such statements occurring in the works of so famous an authority as 

 Professor Agassiz. 



.\s for the work of m\ predecessors, when Professor .\gassiz slates that 1 practicalh- reject the 

 whole of it, challenging it as worthle.s.s, becau.se it is not based u])on m\ methods for the .solution 

 of all echinological problems,* I venture to think that he does not (hi me ju.stice. Setting a.side for 



