Pores in Fistidate Crinoids. — Bather. 311 
find that they have ever modified this statement either, and 
indeed Mr. Springer appears to intend confirming it in 
his present paper. It is no doubt correct so far as present 
knowledge goes. 
Since, then, these statements fully agreed with my own 
observations I was not a little surprised to find adduced as 
"most complete evidence" of pores passing through the 
plates, figures that not merely made no attempt to delineate 
the passage of the pores, but that showed the alleged pores 
in positions where their presence had never been asserted or 
had actuall)' been denied. All this without one word of 
elucidation. What was one to suppose? The simplest ex- 
planation seemed to be that that the passage of the pores 
was, after all, too obscure a phenomenon to be shown; 
that the pores themselves were very difficult to see; and that 
the artist instructed to draw them had, therefore, in some in- 
stances inserted them in the wrong positions. Such an event i.^ 
not uncommon, and if one points it out one is not generally 
considered to be accusing an author of misrepresentation, 
still less of wilful intent to deceive, I however, with no direct 
evidence at my command, merely "suggested" it as a possible 
explanation. Mr. Springer is so fairminded in debate and so 
zealous for the truth that he has felt it right to make admis- 
sions which show that m.y suggestions were not so far out after 
all. We need not reckon up the pores and see whether the 
balance of correctness is in my favour or his. Is it not enough 
justification for my suggestion that out of eight figures (2a, 
2b, 4, 5, 7,-8, 9, loa) showing pores, no less than five have an 
appreciable quantity incorrectly placed. Mr. Springer admits 
this for 2a, b, and 5; he does not seem to have noticed ap- 
parent pores at the angles of the plates in the distal region of 
fig. 4; as for 7 and 8, they may be absolutely correct draw- 
ings, but I should be sorry to have to infer the position of the 
pores from their evidence; the apparent pores in the cup and 
proximal portion of the sac of fig. 6 are unexplained; fig. loa 
(Coeliocrinus vcniricosiis) is passed by without comment on 
page 134 of the paper before me, although the very clear ap- 
pearances of pores must all be incorrect or deceptive accord- 
ing to the canon laid down on page 138 by Mr. Springer. There 
*"Rcvision of the Palaeocrinoidea" 1, p. q of author's copy; 1879. 
