488 On some Alleged Cases of Misrepresentation. 



write : " We admit that the so-called postero-lateral radial 

 (fig. 4 a) is not articulated to the bifurcating plates [sic] but 

 united with it by suture ; we insist, however, that the latter 

 cannot be an azygous plate, as suggested by Carpenter, —nor 

 is it a brachial — but that it is the equivalent of the combined 

 small radial, and small anal plate in Hyhocrinusy Again, 

 op. cit. p. 376, first paragraph, " In locrinus ... we suggest 

 that possibly the radial may embrace an undivided anal 

 piece." Whether they suggested or whether they insisted is 

 immaterial ; but if they did not mean that the anal x vs^as 

 represented in the right posterior radial, what that can be 

 expressed by language did they mean ? 



On p. 383 they say " We cannot understand how Bather 

 on p. 330 of his paper could conclude from the structure of 

 Ectenocrimis, which he has regarded as one of the most ' primi- 

 tive forms,' that w ' originated as a plate morphologically 

 corresponding to an ordinary brachial. ' " Now Ectenocrinus 

 is not mentioned on p. 330 of my paper : the genera adduced 

 are locrinus and Merocrinus and, in a less degree, Hetero- 

 crinus. On p. 379 of the same paper it is argued that 

 locrinus and Merocrinus are more ancestral than Heterocrinus^ 

 and Heterocrinus than Ectenocrinus. " Comment," says the 

 critic, " is needless ! " 



On pp. 384-5 they criticise my expression " the shifting of 

 the radianal," and I agree with their criticism ; but they 

 might have alluded to the fact that on p. 78 of Revision I. 

 (Proc. 1879, p. 301) it is stated that in Homocrinus " the 

 lower portion of the compound plate is pushed slightly to the 

 rear," and that on p. 40 of Revision III. (Proc. 1885, p. 262) 

 is written " In Poteriocrinus^ Eupachycrinus and Zeacrinus 

 the azygous plate is ... . completely pushed out of the radial 

 position which it had previously occupied." But no doubt 

 they did not mean this when they wrote it. 



On pp. 383 and 386 they ascribe to n)e some " theory " 

 that " the ventral sac represented a modified arm." So far 

 as I am aware, the only people that have ever held this theory 

 have been Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer themselves ; and 

 of it I said (p. 331) " this view is as unnecessary as it is 

 untenable." 



In conclusion, I trust that no readers of this defence will 

 suppose that the theories of Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer 

 are in the smallest degree invalidated by it. It is just 

 because human nature is so apt to substitute personality for 

 abstract truth, and to be prejudiced by quite unessential but 

 distracting details, that I have thought it advisable to treat 

 these disturbing questions apart from the real discussion. 



I 

 I 



