526 Revieics — Wachsmuth ^ Springer's Monograph on Crinoids. 



ordinal character," whereas it is omitted altogether in my classifica- 

 tion of 1893. At first I accepted the statement of these learned 

 authorities, but when fact after fact showed that it was far from 

 a universal truth, it was impossible to utilize it for classification. The 

 anal tube of Eiispirocrinus spiralis is as solid as that of Actinocrinus ; 

 that of Cyatliocrinus vishycensis is but little less so; that of C. ramosus 

 is a mere knob, and its lumen is quite small. Again, genera, species, 

 and actual specimens that had been stated to possess pores and slits 

 in the tube or sac were definitel}'^ proved by me to have nothing but 

 deep folds. Wachsmuth and Springer now admit my statement for 

 " Cyatliocrinus, Eiispirocrinus, and possibly the Cyathocrinidee 

 generally, in which very likely the madreporite performed the 

 functions of the tube-pores " ; but they " have the most complete 

 evidence that among the Poteriocrinidse, in many cases, the pores 

 pass through the test." Perhaps they have. And yet I am still 

 sceptical. It was examination of Scaphiocrinus multiplex itself, 

 the first and chief species in which such pores were observed, 

 that made me doubt the observation. I have examined, with like 

 result, specimens described and figured by Grenfell and by Loven. 

 Now, let the impartial reader compare my detailed descriptions and 

 the drawings by Liljevall, Hollick, and myself, magnified 8, 16, 

 and 20 diameters, with the bald statements and drawings, scarcely 

 more than natural size, published by Wachsmuth and Springer. He 

 will admit that scepticism is justified. Nay, more ! Let him 

 examine two of the figures on which they specially rely, namely, 

 pi. vii, figs. 5 and 9. He will observe that the supposed 

 pores are drawn in the middle of each side of each hexagonal 

 plate of the tube ; each pore lies on a line passing between 

 the centres of adjacent hexagonal plates. Then let him look 

 at the other figures, such as 26, and he will note that the 

 supposed pores are at the angles of the plates, and never on these 

 radial lines. Let him then examine a few hundred specimens 

 of Fistulate genera, and he will find that the apparent pores or 

 slits never are on the radial lines, but always at the angles or 

 between the ridges of the folded plates. Some resemblance to the 

 alleged structure of Aulocrinus is presented by Gissocrinus verrucosus,^ 

 but this is only partial and superficial. I do not accuse the authors 

 of any intention to mislead, but this I do suggest : that their 

 artist would not have drawn figures 5 and 9 in this way had 

 he not been told to put in structures which he really had 

 a difficulty in seeing. Few scientific writers have not had a like 

 unfortunate experience. If Aulocrinus truly has a ventral sac 

 of this nature, it differs far more from other Fistulata than Messrs. 

 Wachsmuth and Springer have stated. If the structui-e is correctly 

 drawn it is most extraordinary that it should not be specially 

 mentioned in the text. But it is so opposed to all facts hitherto 

 observed or published that, until Mr. Springer himself compares 

 fig. 9 of pi. vii with the original specimen and assures us 



1 " Crinoidea of Gotland, I," pi. x, fig. 378: SvensJc. Vetensh. Akad. Sandl., 

 XXV, 2 (1893). 



