398 The American Naturalist. [May, 
Wirbelthieren.” In this paper, besides detailing the results of 
his studies on certain lizards, the author considers views held 
or supposed to be held by Dr. E. D. Cope, Dr. G. Baur, and my- 
self concerning the morphogeny of the vertebral column. In 
the present paper I shall endeavor to vindicate the position I 
have taken on the subject. Drs. Cope and Baur are capable of 
making their own defense. 
My conclusions regarding the mode of development of the ver- 
tebral column were reached after a careful study of the young 
of Amia and a comparison of the results with the vertebral 
structures of other animals, living and extinct. These con- 
clusions were set forth in “ Publications of Field Columbian 
Museum,” Vol. I, pp. 1-54; and it is to this paper that my dis- 
tinguished critic refers. That paper really consists of two 
parts ; the first part dealing with the structures of the adult 
axial skeleton, the second, beginning with page 25, treating of 
the development of the vertebral column in the young fisb. 
The views expressed in the first part are somewhat modified in 
the second. 
It may be well first of all to correct some errors into which 
Dr. Goette has fallen regarding statements made by myself. On 
page 381 of his paper he affirms that I found in the embryo of 
Amia, between the bases of the arches and the notochord, a 
dense layer of connective tissue, which later disappeared. I 
really found nothing of the kind, and I know of no expression 
in my paper which suggests it. A statement somewhat to this 
effect is, however, made by Dr. Gadow and Miss Abbott in 
“Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London,” Vol. 186, p. 202; but there is 
no indication given that Goette had seen this publication. 
On the same page of Goette’s paper occurs the statement that 
I discovered that in dorsal region of Amia the upper intercal- 
ated cartilages push themselves under the succeeding dorsal 
arches, lift the latter away from contact with the notochord, 
and then fuse with them. Goette also refers to figure 10 of my 
paper as representing such a condition. The assertion indi- 
cates a complete misconception of both the text and the figure. 
What I said was that at a very early period these intercalated 
cartilages may have been fused with the arches. After they 
