3o8 The Amefican Geologist. Noyember, igno 
it has induced Mr. Springer to prepare and publish his ex- 
cellent paper, which has removed many difficulties and 
placed the whole subject in a clearer light and on a firmer 
basis. 
Here I should have liked to stop; but there are in m\- 
friend's paper many remarks that show me in an unenviable 
aspect, and make it appear that my scepticism was not jus- 
tified and that my criticism was not kept "within its legiti- 
mate bounds." I deeply lament this feeling, and have al- 
read}' expressed to Mr. Springer my regret that it should 
have been aroused by any words bi mine. In writing the 
paragraphs to which he objects, I was most anxious to com- 
bine courtesy and friendliness with a clearv exposition of my 
doubts. It appears that I did not succeed, and an apolog}' 
is therefore due to the sur\iving representative of Messrs. 
Wachsmuth & Springer. 
This said, I would like to explain what my criticism wa.'i 
and why I still think that it was legitimate. 1 have never 
denied the existence of pores in any genera in which they 
are now proved to exist. Nor have I ever been prejudiced 
for or against their presence in one genus or another. On 
the contrary I have always looked for them and attempted 
to draw them in those specimens that circumstances have 
led me to stud}-. The results-of my investigation have been 
to show that certain definite appearances supposed to be 
pores were not really so, aud that pores did not exist in cer- 
tain genera where their existence was either asserted or con- 
jectured, or at least implied by the more general statement 
of eminent authorities. Mr. Springer (not to mention 
Loven, Wachsmuth, and others) admits the accuracy of my 
observ'ations, and therefore can not, without fresh evidence, 
\ enture to ascribe pores to Cyathocrinus, The?iarocri?ms, Botry- 
ocrinns, Enspirocrhius, Streptocrinus, Mastigocri?itis, Gissocrinus, 
"and possibly the Cyathocrinidif generally." This is a con- 
siderable admission, and perhaps I should ha\ e been con- 
tent to let the matter rest there. But when I came to ex- 
amine the grounds on which Messrs. Wachsmuth &: .Springer 
continued to assert the existence of pores in other genera, 
nothing led me to suppose that thex- had before them struc- 
tures of a totallv different character to those which I had in- 
