jQ ECHINOIDEA. 11. 



au\- striking degree resemble the figure given by Agassiz. It is no Porocidaris . — Here follows a 

 description of the pedicellaria; and spines of the specimen. — Perhaps the specimen of Porocidaris 

 Skarreri mentioned by Agassiz 19. p. 13) which was of a light greenish pink color when alive, the 

 spines white with a delicate 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 

 he figures; but this latter must, of course, keep the name of Skarreri. 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 systematic significance of the spines has been 

 established. For the present it ought to be classed with / iorocidaris wnAer \.\iq mxneoi D. micansn.s^.> 

 Now I reallv must ask, what is the misrepresentation of which I am accused in this passage? I have 

 not iu the slightest wa\ credited Professor Agassiz with the erroneous determination of the specimens 

 sent to me from the U. S. National Museum or .seen by me iu the British ^luseum ' — and I am 

 unable to .see what el.se can be the meaning of the accusation. Professor Agassiz also makes a .similar 

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

 mens of Ph(ormoso?iiaJ urainis and Ph. Prfrrsii sent b\ the vSmithsonian {National Museum) to the 

 Copenhagen Mnsexim and to Professor Koehler. I must repeat again 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 have not held or thought of holding Professor Agassiz responsible for the 

 identification of those specimen.s, and to this statement everyone must agree who will take the trouble 

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

 that he must have labouied under a mi.sapprehension when accusing me of gratuitous mi.srepresen- 

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

 a gratuitous misrepresentation, there was no misrepresentation at all. 



Before entering on a discussion of the more detailed criticisms found iu the work of Professor 

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

 on a single character . ( )n the contrary, e\'ery effort has been made to do justice to all available 

 characters. Researches on the classificatory value of the characters found iu the different structures 

 led me to believe that the pedicellariic were of .special importance, but I did nt)t beforehand plan that 

 the classification should be based on those organs, as might be gathered from the following sentence 

 (if Professor .\gassiz: Dr. IMorteusen |)launed what he uiodesth' calls a profound' and careful al- 

 liuipl at ])euetratiug into the mysteries of the relationship of the Kchinoids based upon a slud\ of 

 the pedicellari;e . (Op. cil. ]). 106.1 The continuation of the quotation Iroiii ni\ work ip. 31 runs thus: — 

 and the i)lau was the sim])le, but clear one: to let litterature alone lor the ])resent, whik- tlie animals 

 were studied thoroughly. Kver\thiiig had to be examined, thai might in an\ wa\ be supposed to show 

 .systematic characters: the test, the spines, the tube-feet, the pedicellaria;, the spicules, the sphaeridiae 

 etc. .\n\one who will take the trouble to look at ui\- di;iguoses of, for exam])le, the genera of Eilii- 



< 1 may say that in Ur- L'. .S. -National .\lu,senni 1 found a specimen from the- -Blake! iS7,S-79 (No. 151. OiS 

 Nevi.s. 356 fathoms) named Porocidaris Shayn-ri. which is really Stereocidari.'i ifti^olfiaiM. This specimen has evidently been 

 identified hy Prof. Agassi/. :ind thus proves that he has also made that error, of which I did not accuse him, Init which 

 he so ardently rejects. 



■ Perhaps the word -profound has not quite the same meanin.i; ,is ilu- Dauisli uorrl yruudii; \ised in this place; 

 at least, the Danish word does not sound immodest. 



