Pores in Fistulatc Crinoids. — Springer. 141 
doubt readily admit the truth of this observation as applied 
to Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer. But in view of the 
gravity of the charge he has made against the truthfulness ol 
our work, and in order to show that the above remark is ap- 
plicable to others besides ourselves, I think it only fair to 
state that Mr. Bather, before he wrote his criticism, and be- 
fore our work was published, had himself seen and examined 
all of our specimens of Aulocriniis. including the original of 
fig. 9, pi. vii. And I have no doubt that when he charged us 
with giving an erroneous figure of this specimen, he did so in 
the full belief that he had seen the structures in question to 
exist in this very specimen contrary to our representation of 
them, but consonant with his opinion of how they ought to 
be. . 
Mr. Bather thinks it extraordinary, if Anlocrunis has a 
ventral sac perforated as we have figured it, that we should 
not have specially mentioned it in the text, as he thinks it 
would in that event differ far more from other Fistulata than 
we have stated. After examining the figures I have pre- 
pared to illustrate this paper, he will doubtless agree with me 
that it was not necessary to make special mention of differ- 
ences which do not exist. 
Figs. 2a and b, Scytalocrinns validus. I have already 
given a sufficient account of this figure, which was partly 
incorrect, on account of a longitudinal fold in the sac, but in 
which the chief error consisted in locating the pores as Mr. 
Bather says they should be, and not as they actually are. The 
new figure here given, with enlargement of one plate 4 dia- 
meters, is from a very perfect specimen, which shows the 
pores with absolute distinctness, at the middle of the sides, 
and not at the angles. They are small as in the preceding 
species, but as in that are well distinguished by being filled 
with a matrix darker than the plates. The surface of the 
plates is simply granular, without any ornamentation what- 
ever (PI. XVI, figs. 9 and 19). 
Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8: — These are not specially disputed, al- 
though they necessarily fall under the same general con- 
demnation. It is figure 6, Scaphiocrinus tmictis, to which Mr. 
Bather doubtless alludes in the Lankester Treatise on Zoology 
when he says ''they show pores . . . not only in the 
