Reviews — Wachsmuth and Springer — On Crinoids. 223 



plate is present in 'Eiisfirocrinus spiralis, though they speak as if 

 it were absent; on the other hand they state that the ventral tube 

 of that species is " profusely perforated." Now in 1879 they said 

 of it, "Pores have not been observed" (Revision I. p. 143) ; their 

 present drawings show no pores ; in the type-specimens pores are 

 not evident. On what grounds then are we to accept this assertion ? 



Here we may also note an account of the anus in the Cyatho- 

 crinidse differing from any previously given ; and a repetition of 

 their former statement as to its position in the Poteriocrinidee ; but 

 of proof or illustrations never a scrap. Messrs. Wachsmuth and 

 Springer should remember that, in scientific treatises at all events, 

 neither inspiration nor authority can supply the place of evidence 

 and argument. 



The latter half of the paper deals with the anal plates. These 

 are not regarded as homologous with the interradials, but are more 

 supplementary still, being " introduced as the case required." They 

 are also distinguished from the plates of the ventral sac or anal tube, 

 a difference of terminology that occasionally seems to make the 

 authors think that there is also some difference in morphology. 

 However, since this idea materially simplifies all discussion as to 

 homology and at once puts some recent speculations out of court, 

 one cannot blame the authors for adopting it. It should, however, 

 be noted that to regard the special anal plate of the Fistulata as 

 a purely supplementary piece, and to suppose that the additional 

 anal plate in such forms as Poteriocrimis is a fresh introduction, are 

 ideas wholly different to any previously advocated by these writers. 

 They have also considerably changed their views with regard to 

 Baerocriniis. Much of this half of the paper is however unavoidably 

 controversial, and will be more fittingly discussed in another place. 



The first half of the paper is also controversial in tone, although, 

 since their own errors were the greater*, the authors might well have 

 left Dr. P. H. Carpenter alone. They have, we suppose, got so 

 accustomed to sparring with him that they like to keep it up if only 

 for exercise. This however hardly excuses the gloveless way in 

 which they handle him ; while their occasional distortions of his 

 words are rather like hits below the belt. Thus on p. 350 they say : 

 " The ventral pavement of an Actinocrinus he calls ' a structure sui 

 generis,' i.e. different from that of a FlatycrinusJ" Dr. Carpenter's 

 words (Chall. Rep. Stalked Crin. p. 157) are these: "The solid 

 vault of an Actinocrinus is a structure sui generis, unless, as I believe, 

 its proximal ring of interradial plates is represented by the orals of 

 a Neocrinoid," i.e. it is not a structure sid generis ; and Carpenter's 

 homology of the proximal interradials is the very one now adopted 

 by his critics! Again (op. cit. p. 178) Dr. Carpenter says: "The 

 peripheral portion of the vault of Plati/crimis, i.e. the zone between 

 the proximal dome plates in the centre and the calyx interradials, 

 is comparatively small ; and its interradial spaces are ' occupied by 

 three — rarely five — plates . . . resting upon the interradial of the 

 calyx.' This series of four or six interradials, taken all together, . . . 

 corresponds generally to the single large interradial of Cyatliocrinus 



