Alleged Cases of Misrepresentation. 483 



] am fully prepared to admit that they meant nothing of the 

 kind ; but language, not thought-transference, is the only 

 recognized medium of scientific communication. 



To return to my paper. On p. 324, in summing up the 

 position which "Wachsmuth and Springer held in 1886, I 

 said : " (1) Azygos plate (Az) a primitive element of dorsal 

 cup." On this they say (p. 390) " A careful examination of 

 both sections of Pt. Ill of the Revision, will show nothing 

 to justify Bather in assuming that we regarded the Azygos as 

 a ' primitive element.' We only stated on p. 11 : ' the lower 

 segments (of the compound radials) are probably embryonic 

 plates, which were resorbed by the upper segments.' " 



My meaning was quite clearly explained on p. 323. In 

 their own words [Revision III. (p. 12), Proc. 1885, p. 231] 

 " the azygous piece may represent the lower segment of the 

 posterior radial ; " but [Rev. III. (p. 11), Proc. 1885, p. 233] 

 " the lower segments are probably embryonal plates." For 

 the rest they repeat in 1885-6 what they said in 1883, adding 

 [Pag. cit. } footnote] " For further information on Baerocrinus 

 and the gradual resorption of the azygous and anal plate in 

 the Inadunata generally, we direct attention to our paper on 

 Hi/bocrinus } Hoplocrinus and Baerocrinus." 



Now a structure that is " embryonal " or (as they now 

 prefer to quote) " embryonic " is usually regarded as primitive 

 or ancestral. Certainly it is so regarded when there is nothing 

 said to the contrary, and when it is more highly developed 

 the earlier the form. It was therefore natural to suppose that 

 Wachsmuth and Springer regarded the Azygos plate as an 

 ancestral or primitive structure ; and when I found that on 

 the question of the evolution they still stood by their previous 

 paper, I had no hesitation in stating this conclusion. 



It really seems to me, now that I read Messrs. Wachsmuth 

 and Springer's protest, that they must attach to the word 

 " primitive " some sense with which I am not yet acquainted. 



Next I said (p. 324) : — " (2) Anal ( x ) and right poster- 

 ior radial derived from azygos plate." This Messrs. 

 Wachsmuth and Springer (p. 390) regard as " equally inac- 

 curate." But if 1 had said " derived from the undivided 

 Azygos in Baerocrinus " I should have expressed their views. 



Since, however, the " azygos " of Baerocrinus is admittedly 

 homologous with the azygos plate of other Fistulata, I fail 

 to see where the difference comes in. 



In 1886 Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer wrote as follows 



