1 36 Tlie America?i Geologist. September, 1900 
within its legitimate bounds I am not restive under it. Our 
theories, opinions and conclusions, however promising they 
may seem to-day, are liable to fall to the ground to-morrow, by 
reason of the discovery of new facts. Our judgment may be 
wrong, our methods faulty, and our interpretation of facts 
erroneous, or they may dififer from those of others — and as 
to all these matters we must expect opposition and criticism. 
1, for one, am always ready to receive them with equanimity, 
and consider them without resentment. In the very extended 
review with which Mr. Bather has honored our work, I am 
leady to frankly admit that several of his objections are well 
taken, and most of them are worthy of the greatest considera- 
tion. Upon some of the disputed matters of opinion we shall 
continue to dififer, and as to some I think he has probably 
gotten nearer the truth than we. As each careful student has 
the benefit of the labors of his predecessors, which he may 
utilize from new points of view, and supplement with fresh 
observations of his own, it is to be expected that the latest in- 
vestigator should make substantial advances upon the works 
of those before him. This is not the place to consider any of 
these questions, and I have no intention of reviewing our re- 
viewer. 
But accusation of misrepresentation of facts is a very dif- 
ferent thing, and calls for a direct reply. It should have been 
given before now, but for the impossibility — owing to press 
of other duties — of preparing it, and having the necessary il- 
lustrations made. The charge against us is a verj serious one. 
for if true it may well deprive our Monograph — which con- 
tains the results of twenty years labor — of all claims to rec- 
ognition among scientific men, as a trustworthy record of 
the facts it professes to set forth. It is true Mr. Bather says 
that he does not accuse us of an intention to mislead. But 
the kind of accusation which does not accuse, I do not under- 
stand. And I am very sure that if any one should put in print 
for general circulation such a statement as the one above 
quoted touching any work of his, Mr. Bather would consider 
it the most deadly of accusations. 
The questions to be settled are two: 
1. Are the figures in the Monograph correct? 
2. Are there pores piercing the ventral sac in certain Fis- 
tulata? 
