278 Mr. F. M'Coy in reply to Sir Philip Egerton's 



can scarcely imagine any one reading the paragraph in question 

 could think I proposed this change from the characters merely 

 of the few new Carboniferous species I was then describing ; on 

 the contrary, it was the result of a careful study of the Scotch 

 and Russian Old Red Sandstone fishes, and having of course first 

 made myself master of the writings of Agassiz, Eichwald, &c. 

 on the subject : all the genera I mentioned in that paragraph 

 were previously published Devonian forms, and I should have 

 imagined were well known to Sir Philip Egerton, who I 

 regret did not give his opinion on the subject, as it would have 

 been of great value, and rendered more clear the object of his 

 letter. The next passage I confess pained me excessively, as it 

 seemed to impute to me the absurd unworthiness of taking ad- 

 vantage of Agassiz being absent a nine days' journey to make 

 this change in a part of his classification, and to bring a charge 

 against him of separating genera which were closely allied and 

 placing them in different families with which they had no obvious 

 affinity. The fact is, at the time I wrote I had nothing in my 

 mind but the expression of what I conceived to be the natural 

 affinities of the genera, after a laborious examination of the 

 whole subject ; I believed that if Agassiz had reinvestigated 

 the matter he would have concurred in what I had done ; and 

 even Sir P. Egerton, whose knowledge of the Cephalaspids 

 is at least I believe as great as that of any one living, does 

 not dispute it. The passage is, u I cannot however allow a 

 charge to be brought against my friend Professor Agassiz, in 

 his absence, of having grouped together genera under the 

 title Cephalaspides, having no obvious affinity with the genus 

 Cephalaspis, and having widely separated genera so obviously 

 and closely allied to some of them, that they cannot be separated 

 either by general appearance or any points of structure, without 

 claiming that in justice to Agassiz, his opinions on this subject 

 may be accorded in your pages the same publicity which Mr. 

 M'Coy's observations have already received. The following pass- 

 ages must surely have escaped Mr. M 'Coy's memory when he 

 claims to have discovered affinities (supposed to have been over- 

 looked or disregarded by Agassiz) of sufficient value to justify a 

 re-classification of the Palaeozoic Ganoids.'" — I never "claimed" 

 to have discovered affinities overlooked by Agassiz ; and so far 

 from forgetting his published opinions, they added considerably 

 to the certainty which I felt of the correctness of the view I have 

 put forward. 



The extracts alluded to in the above quotation which Sir P. 

 Egerton has given from Agassiz' Monograph do not invalidate 

 my position, but on the contrary show that Agassiz perceived 

 himself the affinities on which /have acted though he did not; 



