422 Mr. F. A. Bather on Prof. Blake and 



ndd," and from the last paragraph but one: — "Although 

 therefore a new student of the Cephalopoda is to be welcomed 

 ... it would be better that such a one should take up the 

 story where others have left it than go over the old ground 

 with preconceived theories and less careful observations. 

 Nothing, in fact, in the present communication is new ; though 

 it may be little known, it was all in print six years ago. 

 " I am not at all sure, however, that the suggestion &c." 

 In consequence of these sentences I wrote to Prof. Blake and 

 asked for references to any papers in which the facts brought 

 forward by Riefstahl and myself had been described. He 

 replied with promptness, and kindly permits me to make use of 

 his letter. He writes, " Nor do I say that what you have said 

 was all in print six years ago, but what I said^ We must 

 therefore presume that Prof. Blake admits the originality of 

 my observations, despite the contrary impression produced by 

 his paper. 



What Prof. Blake does say is that the description of the 

 structure of the Nautilus-shell contained in his Monograph is 

 opposed to some of my conclusions, of which description, he 

 adds, I " seem to be ignorant." Those who know his admi- 

 rable work will understand the damaging nature of this 

 innuendo. Beply is of course impossible ; but, as I gather 

 from Prof. Blake's letter that he infers my ignorance of his 

 work from the fact that I do not refer to it in what he is 

 pleased to call my " Bibliography," I may point out that a 

 list of " Papers and Works referred to " in the course of an 

 article need not be a bibliography. Clearly mine was not : I 

 mentioned neither the great w"ork of Barrande, nor the articles 

 in ' Science Gossip ' by Mr, H. E. Quilter, nor Prof. Seeley^s 

 suggestive paper in Quart. Journ. Sci. (1864, p. 760), nor — 

 but I might fill pages with references to papers on this sub- 

 ject, with which Prof. Blake must be better acquainted than 

 I am, but to which he has nowhere alluded. 



Ignorance of Prof. Blake's writings, though it might 

 handicap, could not disqualify my work. More serious is 

 his constant uncertainty as to whether what I say is " from 

 autopsy or mental conception." Much as I regret this, I can 

 but state that when I refer to definite specimens, or when I 

 give " figures drawn to nature," I hope for some credence ; 

 when, on the contrary, I propose an explanation and invariably 

 speak of it as " a theory " or " a view," I do not mean to 

 assert it as a fact. 



I pass with relief to Prof. Blake's discussion of facts and 

 arguments ; and here I am glad to find so much agreement. 



