OCR Text |
Show 1880.] OF CERTAIN ECHINOIDEA. 221 telles (Introduction).' I have only followed their example and that of Prof. Agassiz himself." If by this Mr. Alexander Agassiz only means that those who do not quote it as the second livraison, quote it by its titlepage, I submit that such an answer is a mere trifling with the Zoological Society ; but if he means that such is the ordinary method of referring to the * Observations' & c , (and that he does mean or aim at meaning this is probable from his preceding statement that Prof. Louis Agassiz " invariably spoke of it as ' 1'Introduction de la Monographie des Scutelles'") I can pass to (2) The mode of reference adopted by other writers. Mr. Alexander Agassiz states that his father invariably spoke of it in one way; of course, as an answer, Mr. Agassiz means that there are printed references to the ' Observations . . .' in which the abbreviation adopted by himself in his ' Revision' is used. There may be such, but I am not acquainted with them, although I can point to five genera in the ' Nomenclator ' in which a different method of reference is adopted. Let the reader turn to Amblypneustes, Pleurechinus, Temnopleurus, Agarites, or Tetrapygus, and he will "invariably" find succeeding these names the expression " Agass. Monogr. Echin. 2de livr. 1841." Turning now to other witnesses, I will call on two honoured names: one was, with Louis Agassiz, the author of the ' Catalogue Raisonne,' and he * writes Monogr. d'Echinodermes, 2e livre. p. 7; the other is Alex. Agassiz's eminent compatriot A. E. Verrill, who (s. v. Euryechinus) writes, on p. 304 of his ' Notes on the Radiata in the Museum of Yale College'(1867), "Agassiz, Monogr. d'Echinod. 2me livr. (Introduction), July 1841." It is of no use to appeal to the'Catalogue Raisonne'(1846,1847), for the essay in question is not there referred to ; nor is there, to my knowledge, any reference to it in such considerable authors as Liitken'', Von Martens, Perrier, or Dujardin and Hupe. The Society will now see how far Prof. Agassiz is justified in his term " all," and in his adverb "invariably." (3) Contents of the " Essay." Even now I am not certain that Mr. Alex, xlgassiz and I are referring to the same paper. It is true that we both refer to an article published under the same cover as the Monograph of the Scutellidse, that we both quote the title ('Observations . . .') in just the same way, and that we both find on a given page just the same generic names; and yet we differ completely as to its other contents and as to its aim. The basis of my contention obviously laid in the fact that I looked upon the ' Observations ' as having a general interest, and as being, therefore, incorrectly denominated by the term " Int. Mon. Scut."; we learn now, however, from unquestionable authority, that "the contents of this so-called essay, in spite of the heading, show plainly enough that it was not considered at the time as a special essay, but that it was simply an Introduction to the Livraison." Now is the rest of 1 Desor, ' Synopsis des Echinides fossiles,' p. 113. 2 Save this, " 1841 opstillede Agassiz (Preface) imidlerted en Baskke af Slaegter . . ." (Vidensk. Meddel. 1864, p. 154). |