of any kind will immediately determine a recommencement of the manoeuvre. [Illustration: Fig. 50.] [Illustration: Fig. 51.] It will be perceived that as soon as the position just described has been attained, gravity, which had hitherto been acting in opposition to the righting movement, now begins to favour that movement. It might, therefore, be anticipated that the Echinus would now simply let go all its attachments and allow itself to roll over into its natural position But an Echinus will never let go its attachments without some urgent reason, seeming to be above all things afraid of being rolled about at the mercy of currents; and therefore in this case it lets itself down almost as slowly as it raised itself up. So gently, indeed, is the downward movement effected, that an observer can scarcely tell the precise moment at which the righting is concluded. Therefore, in the downward movement, the feet, which at the earlier part of the manoeuvre were employed successfully in rearing the globe upon its equator, are now employed successfully in preventing its too rapid descent (Fig. 52). [Illustration: Fig. 52.] Several interesting questions arise with reference to these righting movements of Echinus. First of all we are inclined to ask what it is that determines the choice of the rows of feet which are delegated to effect the movements. As the animal has a geometrical form of perfect symmetry, we might suppose that when it is placed upon its pole, all the five rows of feet would act in antagonism to one another; for there seems nothing more to determine either the action or the inaction of one row rather than another. Indeed, if there were any moral philosophers among the Echinoderms, they might point with triumph to the fact of their being able to right themselves as an irrefutable argument in favour of the freedom of the Echinoderm will. "We are in form," they might say, "perfectly geometrical, and our feet-rows are all arranged with perfect symmetry; therefore there is no reason, apart from the sovereign freedom of our choice, why we should ever use one set of feet rather than another in executing this important movement." And indeed, I do not see how these Echinoderm philosophers could be answered by any of the human philosophers, who, with less mathematical data and with less physiological reason, employ analogous arguments to prove the freedom of the human will. Physiologists, however, would give these Echinoderm philosophers the same answer that they are in the habit of giving to the human philosophers, viz. that although the physiological conditions are very nicely balanced, they are never _so_ nicely balanced as to leave positively nothing to determine which rows of feet--that is to say, which sets of nerves--shall be used. And in this connection I may observe that on making a number of trials it becomes apparent in the case of certain individual specimens that they manifested a marked