ECHINOIDEA. II. 



the moment the famous Report on the Challenger -Echinoidea, surely Professor A gas six has observed 

 that I regard, for instance, Wyville Thomson's work on the Porcupine -Echinoidea as one of the 

 very best ever published on the recent forms, and that I have the most profound respect for Professor 

 Doderlein's great work on the Cidarids, for the works of Professor K o e h 1 e r , and for many others 

 whom I might name. That I do not agree with these authors in all points, is far from implying a 

 slight appreciation of their work. As for challenging it all as worthless because it is not based upon 

 my (his) methods for the solution of all Echinological problems , can it really be necessary for me to 

 express my conviction that any accurate and careful scientific research retains its worth, whatever 

 method has been used? - - If it be found, however, that some structure like the pedicellarise is emi- 

 nently important for classification, then consequently no species of which the test only has been de- 

 scribed (however perfect that description may be) can be assigned to its definite position in the system 

 before that special structure has been made known. This logical conclusion is far from being that 

 implied by Professor Agassiz in the following remark (Op. cit. p. 19): The height of absurdity is finally 

 reached when we are told that nothing can be said of the affinities of species of which pedicellarise 

 have not been examined (by him).> The word nothings as used by me, when taken in reasonable 

 connection with the context, is seen to mean that one cannot say with certainty to which genus such 

 a species belongs, e. g. Goniocidarix Doderleini (Part I. p. 28) or Asthcnosoina longispinnm (Ibid. p. 56), 

 and in such places I have added the words .with certainty. That in any case my proviso applies 

 only to those families in which peclicellariae are of prominent systematic importance should be self- 

 evident, but it may not be superfluous to state the fact explicitly here. For the rest Professor Agassiz 

 will probably himself admit that he was not justified in designating as an absurdity my view that 

 species, whose most important systematic characters are unknown, cannot be assigned to their true 

 position, seeing that Professor Doderlein, whom both Agassiz and I honour with the highest ap- 

 preciation for his profound and elaborate works, now also puts aside as inccrtce sedis such species as 

 Dorocidarix pdi/an/i'i/six A. Ag. and Porocidaris Sharreri A. Ag. on account of their pedicellarise being 

 unknown, though they are otherwise very carefully described. (Echinoiden d. deutsch. Tiefsee- 

 Exped. p. 103.) 



To turn to my personal remarks, which are characterised as being entirely out of place in a 

 scientific memoir , I have already stated that I avoided personalities as far as possible, and in the 

 whole of my work I can recall only two remarks to which Professor Agassiz might object on such 

 grounds. The study of the Challenger > Echinoids preserved in the British Museum has shown me that 

 Professor Agassiz has in several cases put one or more notes of interrogation on the labels in the jars, 

 but has omitted to mention in the text that the identification was doubtful. Without seeing the labels 

 110 one would imagine that the published statements are really doubtful. They appear in the work 

 as certain facts and as such have been qxioted by other authors with the consequent multiplication of 

 insecurely based conclusions. On this subject I observed: this way of proceeding is very objectionable-, 

 and on p. 58: it cannot be considered to be corrects to figure details of a specimen, referred with doubt 

 to some species, without any reservation under the name of that species. I do not think these remarks 

 out of place, where such facts are pointed out; but it is evidently these small reflections which have 

 caused the above-cited remark of Professor Agassiz, as well as the following: Having stated in one 



