Mr. W. S. Kent on the Affinities of the Sponges. — 251 
ing the destructible nature of my position is, to say the least, 
somewhat premature. 
en admitting that, far back in the remote ages of time, 
there probably did exist a something equivalent to Prof. 
Hückel's Protascus, the expression was meant to carry with it 
the vaguest possible significance, and simply as an acknow- 
ledgment of my faith in the doctrine of evolution. "The whole 
tenor of my paper bears me out in this assertion; and I was 
also then under the impression that Hickel himself sought to 
convey nothing further. Referring once more to his article, 
however, I find he supposes this organism to be sac-like, with 
a single terminal orifice—a view which I certainly had and 
have no intention of indorsing, all the evidence attainable 
discussed in my former paper, and need not be repeated here. 
r. Lankester criticises the use I make of the terms “ ho- 
mology ” and “ analogy,” which have unfortunately in the 
hands of different naturalists received an almost equal number 
of modes of interpretation; and Mr. Lankester himself, in 
evident despair of defining their limits by other means, fi 
it necessary to preface his criticisms wit 
stamp of high originality. At the time of penning my first 
paper, mim ih E this had yet to be peeled; and the old 
