A. e. OUDRMANS, NOTES ON ACARI. 75 



hopes of obtaining it, but without result, until nearly the 

 end of August when suddenly a hatch appeared nearly all 

 males«. — One should say here we have — though Michael 

 does not assert it — an agamic reproduction; I myself thought' 

 so, but to obtain certainty I wrote to my friend and he 

 promptly answered me by date of 29, 9, 1904 : 



»I have been to Loudon for a day, and I got my paper 

 on C. venustissimus and referred to my notes. I do not 

 think that my experience can be relied on as proving par- 

 thenogenesis. I believe that the specimens from which I bred 

 the male were fresh captured specimens of the female, not my 

 own Nymphs wich I had reared to maturity, I was only 

 searching for the male, not investigating parthenogenesis.« 



So again we have no proof of parthenogenesis in this case ! 



Further, in 1881, Michael wrote a paper entitled: b s e r- 

 vations on the life- histories of Gamasinae 

 with a view to assist in more exact classi- 

 fication (Liunean Journal, Zoology, vol. 15, 

 p. 297—309) in which he recorded the results of his breeding 

 Gamasus coleoptratorum (L.) and Gamasus crassipes (L.). Michael 

 did not intend to settle the question of agamic reproduction, 

 — his experiences were led by quite other ideas, — this, 

 however, may not trouble us now, but it is at all events a 

 pity that he has not tried to provoke an agamic reproduction. 

 He several times put a male and a female in one cell, he has 

 watched their copulation, he has seen with own eyes the 

 female laying eggs, he has followed the whole developement 

 of the two above named species, but alas, he has not 

 observed that an unimpregnated female laid 

 eggs. With these words I will not say, of course, that 

 parthenogenesis is impossible, on the contrary, I 

 believe it even to be probable, but hitherto it is not 

 observed. 



