Pores in Fisttdate Crinoids. — Bather. 309 
vestigated. They made assertions, but as they gave no fig- 
ures and no detailed description, I took the libert)' of point- 
ing out that authority could not supply the place of proof. 
Other naturalists of no less eminence had been misled, wh\' 
not they also? Consequently when their great Monograph 
appeared I looked with expectancy for the descriptions and 
figures that should afford the desired evidence. Again I 
found an assertion — a very strong one it is true, but sup- 
ported only by figures which hardly seemed to advance the 
case. The mere existence of dark spots, whether at thc 
angles, at the sides, or in the substance, of a plate is, I still 
maintain, no proof of the existence of pores. A drawing, 
however accurate showing no more than do figures 2, 5, and 
9 on pi. vii of the Monograph, is not to be accepted as evi- 
dence. Surely we might have been given figures such as 4, 
16 and perhaps 8, of Mr. Springer's present paper, and so 
have been spared all future controversy. 
Now as to the position of the pores and the correctness 
of the figures. I admit that I was quite wrong as to the 
actual position of the pores, but Mr. Springer's explanation 
of my mistake is more well-meant than well-founded. Had 
my mind been so warped as he supposes, I should hardly 
have figured and described appearances so similar to those 
found by him as are given in the "Crinoidea of Gotland, I" 
pi. i, f. 37, 49, pi. viii, f. 292, pi. ix, f. 322, 334 pi. x, f. 378. 
Some of these are not pores, others, I am now prepared to 
admit, may be. When Mr. Springer not unfairly remarks 
that I had seen the specimens of Aulocrmiis^ (a statement I 
am quite willing to accept, though I cannot confirm it) he 
forgets that, when I had the pleasure of spending a few days 
with Charles Wachsmuth and the privilege of seeing the 
Wachsmuth collection, my mind was very fully occupied in 
discussing all kinds of matters with our departed friend and 
in studying specimens of more immediate interest to me. I 
can hardly be expected to remember all the details of speci- 
mens that I saw for a few minutes more than seven years 
ago. The reasons that I had for supposing the pore-like 
appearances to lie at the angles of the plates, or at least 
between the chief radiating folds (axial folds), are two. 
First, the fact that the supposed pores described by Loven 
