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 necessary remarks here. 



In the introduction to his memoir Professor A gas si z states that I show but little appreciation of 

 the work of my predecessors, and De Meijere is included under this accusation, since he agrees with 

 me in regarding the minute microscopical structures of pedicellariae and spicules as of considerable 

 importance for classification. Dr. Morten sen, says Professor Agassiz, 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 Echinological problems. Like all classifications based upon a single character the results 

 obtained culminate in such impossible associations that we are loath to follow his lead. I must 



protest against the temper and style of criticism adopted by Dr. Mortensen ; even if he were right, 

 his assumption of omniscience is offensive to the utmost, and his personal remarks are entirely out 

 of place in a scientific memoir. He concludes these very unrestrained remarks with the following 

 quotation from a newspaper: <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 which 

 we must be in the nature of the case, wholly ignorant. > 



First, as regards the temper and style of my criticism, I must confess my deep regret at having 

 been so unhappy in my mode of expression. I always had and will have a very 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 may prove untenable and the descriptions 

 of genera and species more or less unsatisfactory. When my examination of the original material in 

 the British Museum led me to publish several corrections of the same author's Report on the Chal- 

 lenger -Echinoidea, I always endeavoured to give them in the simplest way, stating only the facts 

 without comment or reproach, but, I confess, also without praise. This procedure, dictated though it 

 was by my respect for the author of the ;- Revision of Echini, 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 offensiveuess to the mere demonstra- 

 tion of errors. Once again, I repeat my deep regret at this result and can only state that I tried my best 

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

 that may perhaps be partly ascribed to the circumstance that my work has been translated from Da- 

 nish, in which language it was written by me. Probably I may not be quite aware of the full significance 

 of all the English expressions used, so that more may sometimes have been said than I have meant 

 to say. That the errors found out had to be corrected, I think, everybody will agree; in any case 

 I deem it the unconditional duty of every scientist to correct any erroneous statements he detects in 

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

 especially be the case with such statements occurring in the works of so famous an authority as 

 Professor Agassiz. 



As for the work of my predecessors, when Professor Agassiz states that I practically reject the 

 whole of it, challenging it as worthless, because it is not based upon my methods for the solution 

 of all echinological problems,* I venture to think that he does not do me justice. Setting aside for 



