NG 
like those I have described in Rhizorhina; the two apertures mentioned and described by 
the authors are the roots of these tubes. Separate copies of my essay about Rhizorhina 
were distributed in July 1892 (one of them was sent to the authors). Their preliminary 
note, in which they establish Salenskya, mentioning its »appareil fixateur en forme d’amphi- 
disque ou de bouton de manchette«, is dated Sept. 25th 1893, but it is quite evident that, 
at the time their manuscript was sent to the press, they had not read my essay. So, having 
but one specimen of the animal to work upon, they committed the same mistake which I 
had made with my first specimen of Rhizorhina: without having any idea of the tubular 
system inside the host, I detached the visible part of the parasite, thus breaking the stalk 
which united it to the hidden part. After what I have just said about their investigation 
of the male Aspidoecia, I am quite justified in not trusting their statements in a question so 
difficult as that concerning Salenskya, where their judgment rests on the examination of but 
one individual. The result is that the genus Salenskya G. and B. must be cancelled, being 
established only on this one single character. Whether their species differs from Rhizorhina 
Ampelisce will have to be proved by ascertaining if the slight differences between our repre- 
sentations of the males agree with facts. Though this on the whole may possibly be the case, 
I doubt that they are right in stating that the larva of the parasite they describe has two 
orifices for the ducts of the genital organs; I have only found one hole surrounded by a 
somewhat thickened ring. 
The authors quote from their preliminary publication (p. 475—76) a long passage, 
in which they suggest »progénése« and »dissogonie« in the male of Salenskya. They now 
give up these theories, saying: »Les recherches de Hansen prouvent que chez Rhizorhina 
la métamorphose régressive existe bien chez les males de ce genre d'Herpyllobiine et 
qu'elle est tout aussi accentuée que chez les Choniostomatine.« However, the last sentence 
which is meant to establish a relationship between the two groups to each other, is very 
misleading, as the male of Rhizorhina (and Herpyllobius) is a body entirely without limbs, 
mouth or any other external organ or internal muscles, with nothing in fact but genital 
organs, the male of any Choniostomatid whatever is a highly developed animal with anten- 
nule, a very complex mouth with mandibles, besides maxillule, maxilla and maxillipeds 
with some joints, internal muscles etc. So in saying: »Ce charactére différentie] {»pro- 
eénése« in Salenskya and other Herpyllobiide] entre les deux sous-groupes ne peut done 
étre maintenu«, they are perfectly right, but such a negative feature does not imply 
any kinship. 
However, the principal points are contained in the following paragraph, and in 
order to criticise it I am obliged to quote the last half of p. 476 and a little of p. 477 in 
their paper; [ will, however, divide the quotation into three parts. They write: »Le reste 
de lorganisation concorde dune facon remarquable, non seulement chez la femelle ot, en 
raison de la dégradation, toute comparaison peut sembler dépourvue de valeur, mais aussi 
chez les males et les embryons: méme tendance a la disparition de la deuxiéme paire 
3 
