On SheU-groioth in Gephalojpoda. 421 the world, and find in every instance only three tentacles present, and always similarly located. One is at the poste-rior end of the slit at the junction of the two margins just over the anus, and I believe would be protruded from the last open perforation, or, in other words, that most remote from the lip of the shell. The second is situated well forward on the left margin of the slit, and doubtless would, when the animal was living, occupy the last-completed opening. The third is on the right margin somewhat further back, and, judging by the distance which separates it from the preceding tentacle, probably would be extruded through the second perforation. Phili]Dpi, in his ' Handbuch der Conchyliologie ' (p. 215), states that the animal thrusts through the holes the tentacular prolongations of the left side of the foot. This, however, is an impossibility, as the examination of any species at once shows, and possibly was merely a conclusion derived from the appearance of Cuvier's or some other figure. LVIIL — Professor Blake and Shell-growth in Cephalopoda. By F. A. Bathek, B.A. In the ' Annals ' for April (p. 298) a paper on shell-growth in Cephalopoda was published, in which I described certain facts that appeared inconsistent with the views of Dr. Riefstahl and others. From facts first published by Drs. Riefstahl and Appellof, but verified and extended by my own observa-tions, I ventured to draw a few conclusions and to suggest an explanation which was avowedly theoretical. Prof. Blake (' Annals,' May, p. 376) has been good enough to criticize my paper "without delay. Unfortunately misconception on all sides necessitates a reply. His remarks dealing with ques-tions of priority and trustworthiness must be kept distinct from those dealing with facts and the conclusions based thereon. I first reply to the former ; for if a man is proved ignorant of previously published results and guilty of substi-tuting fancy for fact, his credit as a scientific worker is destroyed. There is no doubt that readers of Prof. Blake's article understood him to mean that, so far as facts were concerned, I had said pothing new. This they inferred from such sentences as ''Nor do I find that these writers have anything definite to Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 6. Vol. i. 29
BioStor
