28 Proceed hig.s of the lioyd.i Society of Victoria. 



Justitied, on the evidence before biui and in the absence of 

 an}'' pei'sonal knowledge of the reproduction of tlie I^ew 

 South Wales Fervpatu.s, in contradicting statements which 

 were quite in order ; and secondly, as Dr. Dend3''s views 

 were published in September ]891, and as certain informa- 

 tion on the subject was subsequently brought under his 

 notice, whether it is not now nearly time that Dr. Dendy 

 took ste])s to explain that his views apply wholly and solely 

 to the Victorian Peripatus, and to withdiaw his insinua- 

 tions respecting, and his erroneous interpretation of, ' Mr. 

 Fletcher's observations,' because already Dr. Dendy's state- 

 ments are finding their wa^y into the records of zoological 

 literature, and confusion and nnsap})rehension may result 

 therefrom." 



In reply to Mr. Fletcher's indictment I wish to make the 

 following remarks : — 



(1) I di) not understand the meaning of the statement 

 that the New South Wales Peripatus is, "on the ipm dixit 

 of Dr. Dendy himself," P. leuckaitii, I (;ertainly am not 

 responsible for this identification, which was, I believe, first 

 made by Mr. OUiti* who remarks,* on first recording the 

 animal from New South Wales, that " the species is 

 identical witli that recently recorded by Mr. Fletcher from 

 Gippsland and is probably the Peripatus leiiclauiii of 

 Sanger." I need scarcely point out tiiat the name leackartii 

 has since been applied by Mr. Fletcher himself to the New 

 South Wales species. 



Possibly Mr. Fletchei means to i-efer to tlie larger 

 Victorian species, of whicli the first i-ecorded specimen was 

 identified by himself f as " in all probability an example 

 of P. leiiclurtii, Sanger." If Mi-. Fletcher will refer to my 

 earliest communication on the subject:|: he will find that in 

 recording the discovery of two specimens at Warburton 

 (only one specimen having been previously recorded from this 

 colony) I made the following statement, "after carefully study- 

 ing Professor Sedgwick's full description of P. leuchartii, I 

 am fairly certain that they do not belong to that species, but 

 to a new one, which I for the present refrain from naming," 

 basing my conclusion on the )-emarI<:able pattern of the skin. 



* Proc. Limi. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. il, p. 981. 

 t Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II, p. 450. 

 t Victorian Satnralixt, January ]889. 



