10 
examined by Kroyer could be, but the suggestion that the large globules which, according 
to his statement, contained a long, vermiform body of about half an inch or a little more 
in leneth, should be females of a Choniostoma, indeed seems overbold to me, even in our 
golden age of loose conjectures, and if we could really suppose Kroyer to have made such 
extraordinary mistakes in his statements, we should indeed consider them worse than 
worthless and deserving of everlasting oblivion. When in 1889 I[ read this passage by 
Giard and Bonnier, I remembered, that while working at my previous investigation of 
Choniostoma, | had perused the short paragraph in Kréyer’s excellent monograph: »Et Par 
Bemerkninger om Snyltedyr paa Hippolyfer« |»Some remarks about parasites on Hippolyte«| 
(p. 262—65) without finding anything at all applying to the parasite I was going to describe. 
On p. 371 the two authors write further: »I] est singulier que Hansen ait laissé passer 
inapercue Vobservation de Werner, et surtout le passage beaucoup plus important de son 
compatriote Kroypr«. I shall presently make a few remarks about Weber, and as far as 
regards my overlooking Kréyer, I will only observe that it would certainly have been wiser 
of Mssrs. Giard and Bonnier, whose success in finding a pretty good proof in favour of their 
assertion was entirely owing to two rather unfortunate faults in translation, to consider 
whether they themselves had. not read Kroyer wrongly, before accusing me of having done 
so, especially as this countryman of Kroéyer’s has repeatedly expressed his appreciation of 
him, precisely in the report on the results of the Dijmphna-expedition, and who about twenty 
pages earlier (p. 258) has pointed out Kroyer’s description of small, but interesting, joints 
in the antennz and in the mandible-palp in another Copepod. 
Concerning the censure of my ignoring Max Weber, I will make a few remarks. 
In my dissertation: Fabrica oris Dipterorum, 1883 (Naturh. Tidsskr. 3 R. B. XIV), in order 
to avoid unnecessary length, I did not mention all authors and their opinions, but confined 
myself to the statement (p. 8) that I had made a rule of leaving out writers whom I did 
not consider as having added new elements of importance to the existing knowledge of its 
|the mouth’s} structure, or its use for classification, or whose incorrect views had proved 
to be of no importance. I have followed the same principle in later works, but it seems 
that, in order to avoid the accusation of ignorance, I shall have to use the same precaution 
as in my dissertation, where, immediately after the quoted passage, I enumerate the authors who 
are not mentioned, because they are unimportant with regard to the subject in hand, though 
they may be excellent in their treatment of other branches. I do not think that I had 
noticed the above-mentioned erroneous observation by Max Weber before publishing my 
essay (of which separate copies were distributed in July 1886), and I cannot tell now if 
I should have quoted it, had [ known it then, but, as a matter of fact, I had read and 
understood it before I wrote the French résumé (in which, as mentioned above, I corrected 
my omission with respect to Salensky’s (to me) important work) and I purposely forbore 
mentioning Weber, considering his observations irrelevant, though four or five lines would 
have been sufficient to reproduce their essence. The interest attached to his statements 
