252 Mr. W.S. Kent on the Affinities of the Sponges. 
boundaries of the terms in c nima d assists us in 
demonstrating what little practical use we can make of the 
in attempting to establish the close affinities of the Sponges to 
the Corals 
r. Leto next objects to my making use of psychical 
manifestations in instituting comparisons between the two 
groups; and may not this be said to display pa evi- 
dence of the “conservatism ” with whic In 
seeking to solve Nature’s truths, hilos we take a dern or 
two-sided view of the case alone, or bring all the light and 
evidence we can to bear on every poin int? Mr. Lankester's 
verdict appears to be in favour of the former alternative. 
Mr. Lankester accuses me of persistently comparing extreme 
forms: the ideal diagrammatie sponge-body I made use of in 
illustration was fase aciei to an amount of radial symmetry 
never really occurring, in order to strain the comparison as 
much as possible in Hickel’s favour. 
the same time Mr. Lankester does not hesitate to quote 
the highly individualized forms Euplectella and Grantia, and 
to enumerate all the most complex structural qualities pos- 
sessed by any Porifera, in his pd successful endeavo 
to show that "there is really an enormous gap between 
Sponges and those Protozoa which come nearest them 
Mr. Lankester's third objection to my remarks is his charge 
of Sici, con or, as it would appear, an undue regard for 
authority. ubtless Mr. Lankester’s views on this subject 
are ve dienen t from my own; but in the outset of life 
willingly confess to feeling a very high regard for the opinions 
and experiences of those veterans in science who occupy the 
foremost ranks. 
e fourth objection, and, in Mr. Lankester's estimation; 
the “ clearest eoruin of weakness" I display in my opposi- 
tion to Hickel’s views, is my proposition that the —— 
Mr. Lankester most tis Aoshi suggests, TA in addi- 
regaringe, 
