44 Correspondence — Mr. H. Woodward. 



On Nov. 9tli Mr, Samuel AUport, of Birmingham, wrote me 

 almost to tlie same effect. 



On Nov. 17th Mr. Henry Johnson, of Dudley, forwarded me 

 a very long criticism upon my article, insisting strongly upon the 

 same explanation of the supposed eye-pedicels as that already sug- 

 gested by Messrs. Ketley and Allport in their letters, and he pub- 

 lished the same letter in full in the " Dudley Guardian " of Nov. 21st. 



A very animated correspondence ensued in that paper and in the 

 " Herald " (Nov. 25th, Dec. 2nd and 5th) between Messrs. HoUier 

 and Johnson. A gentleman signing himself " Student " added a 

 letter, and I also wrote a brief reply. 



I may state that the specimen was most critically examined by 

 many of my scientific colleagues before I described it, and I found 

 that several of them, upon a subsequent examination, still held to 

 the opinion that the junction between the glabella and the supposed 

 eye-pedicels could not be accidental, and was certainly not artificial ; 

 and moreover, that the surface of the glabella and that of the horns 

 was at parts continuous, where not cut in developing. 



Mr. Johnson states that the raised supraciliary margin of the true 

 orbit was distinctly visible near the base of the pedicels when the 

 Trilobite was shown to him by the workman before its final de- 

 velopment. 



The most dexterous artist could not have united the head and the 

 horns to produce the effect seen in the specimen leaving the matrix 

 unsullied as it is ; but it was quite possible, by a few clever touches, 

 to render the apparent union of the parts still more complete, and 

 that is what really seems to have been done. Whether the portions 

 which formed these so-called eye-peduncles are really the missing 

 portions of the incurved under-margin of the genal-border of the 

 head of the same Trilobite, naturally {not artificially) displaced, so 

 as to project from the two orbital apertures ; or, whether they were 

 produced from the corresponding portions of the head of another 

 individual, fortuitously brought in contact with it whilst the matrix 

 was still soft and yielding, the effect produced is nevertheless very 

 remarkable, and so like a true union of parts as to have misled other 

 and far abler observers than myself.^ 



With regard to this Trilobite I have said in my paper (p. 490) 

 that "In all points except in the remarkable eye-peduncles, the 

 specimen appears to be a true Calymene Blumenhachii. Indeed there 

 are specimens in the Museiim collection which match Mr. Hollier's 

 Trilobite most exactly, save in this one particular." The constant 

 absence of the cornea of the eye in Calymene and the elevated border 

 surrounding it, led me to conclude that in this, as in Asaphus, 

 Encrinurus, &c., the eyes were raised on foot-stalks, which had been 

 in this instance crushed downwards from their more erect normal 

 position, and apparently carrying with them the genal portion of 

 the head. 



Henet Woodwabd. 



' See Eeport of Meeting of the Dudley and Midland Geological Society, p. 37, 



