17 



like those I liave described i» Rhizorhina ; the two ai)ertures mentioned and described by 

 the authors are tlie roots of these tubes. Separate copies of iii,v essay about Rhizorhina 

 were distributed in July 1892 (one of tlieui was sent to tlie authors). Tlieir preliminary 

 note, in which they establish Salenslcya, mentioning its »appareil fixateiu- en forme damphi- 

 disque ou de bouton de manchette«, is dated Sept. 25th 1893, but it is quite e\adent 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 tirst 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 

 wliich united it to the hidden part. After what I have just said about their investigation 

 of the male Axpidoccia, I am quite justified in not trusting tlieii- statements in a question so 

 difficult as that concerning Salensli/a, where tlieir judgment rests on the examination of but 

 one individual. The i-esult is that the genus Salenshija G-. and B. must be cancelled, being 

 established only on this one single character. Whether their species differs from Rhizorhina 

 AnqwliscfP will have to be proved by ascei'taining 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 tliickened ring. 



The authors quote from their preliminary publication (p, 475 — 76) a long passage, 

 in which they suggest »prog6nese« and »dissogonie« in the male of Salenslcya. They now 

 give up these theories, saying: »Les recherches de Hanskn prouvent que chez Rhizorhina 

 la metamorphose regressive existe bien chez les males de ce genre A' HerpyUohiinw et 

 quelle est tout aussi acceutu6e que chez les Choniostomafina:.« However, the last sentence 

 which is meant to establish a relationsliip between the two groups to each other, is very 

 misleading, as the male of Rhizorliina (and HerpyUohiits) is a body entirely without limbs, 

 mouth or any other external organ or internal muscles, with notliing in fact but genital 

 organs, the male of any Choniostomatid whatever is a liiglily developed animal with auten- 

 nulffi, a very complex mouth Avith mandibles, besides maxillulae, maxillas and maxillipeds 

 with some joints, internal muscles etc. So in saying: »Ce charactere diff^rentiel [»pro- 

 genese« in Salenshja and other Herpyllobiidse] eutre les deux sous-groupes ne pent dona 

 etre 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; I will, however, divide the quotation into thi-ee parts. They write: »Le reste 

 de I'organisation Concorde dune fa(;ou lemarquable, non seulement chez la femelle ou, en 

 raison de la degradation , toute comparaison pent sembler d^pourvue de valeur , mais aussi 

 chez les males et les embryons: meme tendance a la disparition de la deuxieme paire 



3 



