ii6 Cincinnati Society of Natural History 



,16 



A. P. A[. 



Mr. Twitchell said in reply to the position taken by Mr. 

 Morgan : 



"It is useless after this to assert that the statement made in 

 my report was absolutely correct. Beyond a doubt it was too un- 

 qualified. Still Mr. Morgan in his desire to correct the error, has 

 gone almost as far beyond the truth as I fell short of it. In the 

 first place, unpublished work (however excellent) can hardly claim 

 recognition in a review of the knowledge of a subjecc. The Fungi 

 of this region have been worked up thoroughly but, although work 

 has been done on the Algee, I can find no list of our species of 

 Desmids, Diatoms, or the Algce exclusive of these groups. Now 

 to take up the microscopic fauna: In 1882 was published in the 

 Journal of this Society a synopsis of the ('incinnati fauna. This 

 seems to be the latest literature on the subject. 



The class Insecta has several orders marked — "not worked 

 up." How much of this is microscopic I am not prepared to 

 state. In the Arachnida one microscopic species is mentioned. 

 (The list of Arachnida was prepared by the owner of the collection 

 to which Mr. Morgan alludes.) 'I'his list also includes nine Crus- 

 taceans, eleven Annelids (nine of which are Rotifers), no Polyzo- 

 ans, two Hydras, one Sponge, ten Infusorians and four Rhizopods. 



Let us hope for the benefit of all future students of pond life, 

 that this is next to nothing." 



An amendment of the By-laws proposed by Mr. Fisher at the 

 June meeting and amended by Mr. Knight at the July meeting, 

 was presented to the Society for its consideration. 



The proposed amendment was as follows ; to insert in the last 

 clause of Sec. i of Article 6, by-laws, the words, "Honorary and 

 Corresponding" making the amended clause read as follows: "Ac- 



