278 



Works, to whom they stated their case, and the matter was, from their 

 point of view, fully discussed. They were cordially received, and he judged 

 from what he saw and heard that the wishes of the majority of the Board were 

 in harmony with those of the deputation, but it was argued that the Board 

 had no locus standi in the matter, and could only refer it to the "Works 

 Committee, which they promised to do. There the question was left, and 

 it seemed to depend upon the action of the Parliamentary Committee, 

 which would shortly be sitting in connection with the proposal of the Rail- 

 way Company. 



The President announced that the Soiree of the Ealing Microscopical 

 Society was arranged to take place on the 30th of April. Members of the 

 Club who were willing to assist were cordially invited to do so. 



Mr. A. D. Michael said he had received a communication from Mr. 

 Beaulah relative to Myohia musculi, one of the Acarina, the peculiar 

 position of the generative organs of which was described in a paper "On 

 the Reproductive System of the Acarina," published in the Journal for 

 November, 1879 (No. 41, p. 223). The peculiarities of this species were 

 first called attention to in 1834 by Claparede, and all writers upon the 

 subject had treated it as a parasite of the mouse — it did not appear to be 

 confined to any particular species of mouse, but had always been found on 

 a mouse of some kind. Mr. Beaulah had read this paper, and whilst 

 searching for some parasites upon a mole found also " Myohia musculi." 

 Whether it was naturally parasitic there or not he could not say, but it was 

 certain that it was found there, and he thought the circumstance worthy of 

 note, particularly as pointing to the practice which had prevailed of naming 

 species according to the creatures on which they happened to be found, and 

 according to which if a parasite were caught on a new species of bird or 

 animal, it was thought, of course, it must be a new species also. The mode 

 of naming specimens after the creature they were caught upon, instead of 

 according to their own characteristics, was one which led to great confusion, 

 and was certainly to be condemned. So that he felt glad to be able to 

 bring forward this instance, seeing that it went some way towards knocking 

 a nail in the coffin of this fallacy. 



Dr. T. S. Cobbold said that though external parasites hardly came within 

 his range, yet he should like to observe that nothing could be more absurd 

 than to suppose that any parasite was limited to one particular host. As 

 regarded internal parasites, some of them might be limited to certain 

 creatures ; but there were others which might be found almost anywhere. 

 Every animal no doubt had its own parasite, but it also entertained a great 

 many others which it had in common with its neighbours ; so that it was 

 difficult to say how they were to limit them. He should be very glad if Mr. 

 Michael could tell him whether the genus Pecohia had any limitations ; if 

 not, on how many creatures had it been found ? He should like to add, by 

 way of showing what extraordinary errors were sometimes committed in the 

 manner referred to, that some time ago a foreigu observer, named Sherri- 

 matuski, found a parasite on a heron, and of course, regarding it as a new 

 species, gave it the name of " Desmatofatoiges Sherri))iatuskii.^' It after- 



