Alleged Cases of Misrepresentation. 487 



I hope that I have now successfully defended myself 

 against the charges of misrepresentation, though I may not be 

 acquitted of obtuseness. There still remain, however, a few 

 points in the body of Messrs. Wachsrauth and Springer's 

 paper to which I must regretfully take some exception. 



On p. 377 they say of me " He agrees with us and Car- 

 penter that the radial anal plate, the so-called azygous piece, 

 constitutes primarily the lower portion of the right posterior 

 radial, which in the earlier forms occupies a position imme- 

 diately below the radial." This represents with perfect 

 accuracy the view given in my paper; it represents I believe 

 the view of Dr. Carpenter ; it may, for all any one can tell, 

 represent the present view of Messrs. Wachsmuth and 

 Springer; — but I deny that it represents their views of 

 1883-5-6, which were the last that had appeared when t 

 published. According to those views the earlier forms were 

 Baerocrinus } Hoplocrinus, and Hybocrinus ; but in Baero- 

 crinus there was, they said, no right posterior radial at all ; 

 while in the other two the radianal is certainly not imme- 

 diately below the radial. This difference was all-important 

 from my point of view, and if Messrs. Wachsmuth and 

 Springer now agree uith me I am glad to hear it, but they 

 have come to the opinion of Carpenter and myself, not I to 

 theirs. 



On p. 380 they say " Mr. Bather assumes, as before stated, 

 that the anal plate, the plate #, is derived primitively from a 

 brachial &c." I should not venture to assume anything so 

 important ; my conclusion was arrived at after eleven pages 

 of discussion and argument. The essential part of my con- 

 clusion was that the plate x passed down into the dorsal cup 

 from above ; the idea that it was derived from a brachial and 

 the name " Brachianal " followed as corollaries, but nothing 

 depended on them in the subsequent discussion as to Phylo- 

 geny and Classification. 



On p. 381 Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer say "We 

 must also protest against his statement on p. 324. There, in 

 summarizing our position on the anal question, he says under 

 locrinus : ' .Radial growing larger at expense of Azygos, and 

 here has absorbed x; ' while the fact is we have always held, 

 and have said so, that this plate x was unrepresented in 

 locrinus and was as yet undeveloped' 1 '' *. In reply to this I 

 need only refer Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer to their 

 own paper on u Hybocrinus } Hoplocrinus } &o,." p. 370, second 

 paragraph, line 15. Here, on the subject of locrinus, they 



* The italics are Wachsmuth and Springer's, not mine. 



33* 



