384 TWENTIETH REPORT ON THE STATE CABINET. 



were stated on the last page (48) of the paper as then published, and 

 which I have allowed to remain in the present Keport. I cannot avoid 

 thinking that since Prof. Winchell had an opportunity of making com- 

 parisons and identifications with my species, before the printing of his 

 paper, it would have been better to have avoided the " misunderstanding," 

 " synonomy " and the "little clashing of identifications," and thus have 

 prevented the necessity of the " Supplementary note," which was no part 

 of the original communication to the Boston Society.^ 



In regard to the criticisms upon the species mentioned in this "Supple- 

 mentary note," I shall review them in the same order. I suppose that under 

 heads 1 and 2 (pp. 107 & 108), 7ZZ«7i2^5a7*7?zo;?z^5 is cited in the second place by 

 mistake, since I have distinctly stated that it occurs at Racine and Grafton, 

 Wisconsin. Ichthyocrinus suhangularis is likewise cited from Waldron, 

 Indiana. The citing of Bridgeport as a locality for Amhonychia acutirostra 

 was erroneous, as the original is from near Milwaukee ; and it is only 

 within a few days that I have seen, in the collection of Prof. Marcy, a 

 species which I regard as identical with that one. 



"4 [page 108]. The following five species described by us as new, have 

 "been identified by Hall with old species." 



" [a). Ichthyocrinus corbis, W. and M., with I. suhangularis, Hall. 

 "Besides the uniform want of angularity of this species, it differs in the 

 " perfectly straight bounding lines of the upper and lower sides of the 

 " secondary and tertiary radials, which in I. suhangularis are bounded by 

 "a double curvature, as in /. Icevis. 



" We are not in possession of specimens of /. suhangularis showing the 

 "form of the "primary radials; but Hall states that 'the centres of 

 *' of the upper margins are depressed or emarginate, and their lower mar- 

 * ' gins produced.' 



" Scores of specimens of I. corhis show a uniform difference in this 

 " respect, not to speak of the supposed difference of basal structure." 



Having made this identification upon what I regard as sufficient evi- 

 dence, I am not disposed to yield this view in favor of any imaginary or 

 ^^ supposed difference of hasal structure.^'' At the close of the description, 

 page 90, Prof. W. says : " the characters about the base are somewhat 

 ^'- obscure, and it is possible we have overlooked the real first radial. This 



* Under date of December 27th, 1865, a year later than my communication to Prof. 

 Winchell, I received a letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Publication 

 of the Boston Society of Natural History, and one from the Secretary of the Society, 

 of Date 29th December (written by direction of the former), communicating a proof 

 sheet of this "Supplementary note," saying that as it had not been submitted to the 

 committee, there might be some objection to its publication, on account of want of 

 knowledge regarding its statements and the fairness of its criticisms; and that the 

 Society wished to avoid controversy. 



The proofsheet came to hand on the 30th December; and I replied under date of 31st, 

 objecting to its publication unless after revision by the author, whom I felt confident had 

 overlooked the date of his knowledge concerning my work, and his own communication to 

 me ; and stating, further, that its publication in that form would require a rejoinder from 

 me, which I wished to avoid. However, since the publication bears date of December 1865, 

 it is evident that my reply was not waited for, and the sending of a proofsheet was a 

 matter of form only. 



