403 



cord of a single case in which three or more large hermaphrodites 

 sitting together had a single male among them. The frequency of the 

 occurrence of a male and a hermaphrodite is very striking. 



The presence of the »problematical organsc or Whe el er' s ovaries 

 in the males proves absolutely nothing , unless it can be shown that 

 they produce ova in the males''. 



This Wheeler admits his inability to prove, and in one of the 

 encysted species, M. pulvinar, a form in which a small male and a 

 large female jointly occupy a cyst — he confesses'^ that he is »unable 

 to maintain that the males are really young individuals which will 

 ultimately develop into females after passing through a hermaphro- 

 dite stagetr. He also adds » still I have seen nothing to render such 

 a supposition improbable«. But why make any such unnecessary sup- 

 position , except to bolster up an argument which is otherwise un- 

 tenable? 



Many of the extreme cysticolous forms have been shown to be 

 dioecious, and we also know that in them the male is far smaller than 

 the female — diminutive in fact. A similar, though not quite so pro- 

 nounced, minuteness is also characteristic of the male of M. glahrum. 

 Does not the analogy of other cases, Rotifera, Artemia, Sacculina, 

 Cirripedia etc., rather lead to a suspicion that the dioecious stage was 

 here the primary one, and that the reduction in size of the males was 

 associated with the adoption of the secondary condition of hermaphro- 

 ditism? In some other cases parthenogenesis was the secondary state 

 »chosen«. Parthenogenesis and hermaphroditism appear to be always 

 mutually exclusive. The nature of both would be discussed elsewhere. 

 Here it may be pointed out that in both the males tend to degenerate 

 and disappear, but that their existence is far more endangered by 

 parthenogenesis than by hermaphroditism. 



The minute size of the undoubted males of the (female or herma- 

 phrodite) extreme cysticolous forms is a factor of which Dr. Wheeler 

 can no more offer an explanation than his predecessors, Nansen and 

 Proudho. It is this minuteness of the male which strengthens me in 

 a belief that the judgment of the nature of the hermaphroditism in 

 these interesting animals here upheld is the only rational, the only 

 correct one. 



It is beside the point to say that the hermaphroditism is protan- 

 dric, for it is invariably so, chiefly because as a rule it is the females^ 



f" The same in also true of Nans en's so-called oviducts in the males, as will 

 be shown elsewhere. In ray opinion the so-called lateral oviducts are nephridia. 



7 p. 181. 



8 A good instance of this is Myxine cited by Wheeler. Why is not sug- 



