Alleged Cases of Misrepresentation. 487 



I hope tliat I have now successfully defended myself 

 against the charges of misrepresentation, though I may not be 

 acquitted of obtuseness. There still remain, however, a few 

 points in the body of Messrs. Waclismuth and Springer's 

 paper to which I must regretfully take some exception. 



On p. 377 they say of me " He agrees with us and Car- 

 penter that the radial anal plate, the so-called azygous piece, 

 constitutes primarily the lower portion of the right posterior 

 radial, which in the earlier forms occupies a position imme- 

 diately below the radial." This represents with perfect 

 accuracy the view given in my ])aper; it represents I believe 

 the view of Dr. Carpenter ; it may, for all aay one can tell, 

 represent the present view of Messrs. VVachsmuth and 

 Springer; — but I deny that it represents tiieir views of 

 1883-5-6, which were the last that had appeared when 1 

 published. According to those views the earlier forms were 

 Baerocrinus, Hoplocrinus, and Hyhocrinus\ but in Baero- 

 crinus there was, they said, no right posterior radial at all ; 

 while in the other two the radiatial is certainly not imme- 

 diately below the radial. This difference was all-important 

 from my point of view, and if Messrs. Wachsmuth and 

 Springer noio agree with me I am glad to hear it, but they 

 have come to the opinion of Carpenter and myself, not I to 

 theirs. 



On p. 380 they say " Mr. Bather assumes, as before stated, 

 that the anal plate, the plate x^ is derived priiuitively from a 

 brachial &c." I should not venture to assume anything so 

 important ; my conclusion was arrived at after eleven pages 

 of discussion and argument. The essential part of my con- 

 clusion was that the plate x passed down into the dorsal cup 

 from above ; the idea that it was derived from a brachial and 

 the name " Brachianal " fallowed as corollaries, but nothing 

 depended on them in the subsequent discussion as to Phylo- 

 geny and ClassiHcation. 



On p. 381 Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer say "We 

 must also protest iigainst his statement on p. 'd'li^. There, in 

 summarizing our position on the anal question, he says under 

 locrinus : ' lladial growing larger at expense of Azygos, and 

 here has absorbed x-^ ' while the fact is we have always held, 

 and have said so, that this plate x was unrepresented in 

 locrinus and was as yet undeveloped''^ ■^. Vn reply to this 1 

 need only refer Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer to their 

 own paper on ^^Ilgbocrinus, Hoplucrinus,&c.,'^ p. 370, second 

 paragraph, line 15. Here, on the subject of locrinus, they 



* The italic-" aro Wachsmuth and Springer's, not mine. 



33* 



