Pores ill Fiitnlate Crifioids.— Springer. 137 
Mr. Bather's proposition is that the structures which we 
have represented as pores do not penetrate the plates at all. 
He agrees that there are certain pits or depressions that super- 
ficially may resemble pores or fissures, but claims that in cer- 
tain species of Cyathocrinus and allied genera, he has by clean- 
ing away the matrix exposed the actual surface of the plates at 
the bottom of these pits, and found that the sutures are con- 
tinuous across them, and not interrupted by pores or fissures. 
He disbelieves, to the extent of avowed scepticism as to the 
reliability of our proofs, that it can be otherwise in other 
forms. He thinks that we have mistaken for pores depres- 
sions which exist at the corners of the plates, as he found 
them ; and because we figured specimens in which the depres- 
sions appear to be situated elsewhere than at the corners of 
the plates, he concludes that we have caused the artist to 
show structures which do not exist. For evidence in favor of 
his opinion he refers to our fig. 2b (pi. vii) as showing that 
the pores are at the angles of the plates, and never on the 
radial lines. The "impartial reader," on examining this fig- 
ure, will observe that out of about 2,2^ pores shown, 12 are 
at the middle of the sides, 16 at the angles, and 5 at neither, 
but on the plate itself. The fact is that those at the sides, or 
on the "radial lines," as Bather calls it, are the only correct 
ones. A careful examination of the specimen under a magni- 
fier shows this. The apparent position of most of the others 
is deceptive, owing to the manner in which the specimen i= 
crushed. The artist was not to blame for this, for so far from 
being told to put in structures which he could not see, suffi- 
cient care was not taken, in this instance, to see that the speci- 
men was placed for drawing so as to show the pores only in 
their absolutely correct position. In the specimen figured the 
preservation was such that the pores were not readily seen 
at all, on account of a superficial limestone deposit which par- 
tially obscured them. Besides this, the sac was longitudinally 
fractured and folded on itself so that some of the pores ap- 
peared in a different relative position from the correct one. I 
have carefully cleaned both the original of fig. 2b, and another 
specimen of the same species. It is perfectly plain in the 
original, by holding it in different positions toward the light, 
which cannot be done in the drawing, that all the pores are 
