Dr. W. B. Carpenter on Spirifer cuspidatus. 139 



myself unable to discover. But however " strange " it may 

 seem to Prof. King, I re-affirm, as a simple fact of observation, 

 capable of being at once verified by any competent and un- 

 prejudiced microscopist, that not only do my preparations of 

 this shell show " not the smallest trace of perforations," but 

 they exhibit a continuity of shell-structure where the per- 

 forations ought (in Prof. King's idea) to be seen, which is not 

 surpassed in distinctness by that of a recent Rhynchonella'^ , 

 No metamorphism could produce shell-structure where none 

 previously existed. 



For anything I know to the contrary, however, Prof. King 

 may still hold to the conclusion which he expressed with 

 as little hesitation some twenty years ago tj not only that 

 Spiriferid<E^ but that Rhynchonellce (or HypothyriseSy as he 

 then designated them) are perforated. For although he has 

 been repeatedly challenged, both publicly and privately, either 

 to justify or to retract that statement (which, to use plain 

 English, gave the lie to the figures and descriptions I had 

 published four years previously), he has never, so far as I am 

 aware, explicitly done either the one or the other. 



Now, as there cannot be any common basis of discussion 

 between Prof. King and myself, so long as he " doubts the 

 absence of perforations in any Brachiopod whatever," and as 

 he appears at last to have made himself acquainted with the 

 shell-structure of the recent Rhynchonella psittacea^ to which I 

 long since directed his attention as affording conclusive evi- 

 dence on this point, I think that the scientific world has a 

 right to know his present opinions on the following ques- 

 tions : — 



1. Do any traces of perforations exist in the shells of the 

 recent Rhynchonella psittacea and Rh. nigricans^ 



* Compare my representations of the minute structure of the shell of 

 Rhynchonella psittacea in ^ Reports of the British Association ' for 1844, 

 figs. 27-30, or in my Introduction to Mr. Dayidson's Monogi-aph, plate 5. 

 figs. 4, 5, with the representations of the structure of the perforated Tei'e- 

 hratulidce given in figs. 34-36 of the same ' Reports/ or in pi. 4. figs. 6, 7 

 of the ^ Introduction.' It is needless to repeat figures so well known. 



t " Dr. Carpenter places Hypothyi'ises in his non-perforated division of 

 the Brachiopods ; but punctui-es, though much more minute than those 

 in Terebratulidse, occur in every species that has passed under my ob- 

 servation. Punctures also occur in Productidse and Spiriferidae ; in short, 

 I doubt their absence in any Brachiopod whatever." (Permian Fossils, 

 p. 110, note.) 



" But unfortunately for Dr. Carpenter's observation and Dr. de Koninck's 

 conclusion [as to the imperforateness of the Palaeozoic Spirifers], I have 

 seen punctures in species of everj- genus of Spiriferidse, so that I am led 

 to conclude a punctated structure characterized the entire family." (Op. 

 ct<. p.124.) ^ 



