STUDIES ON AVIAN HJ^MOPEOTOZOA. 715 



is the same as that I have maintained in my article on the 

 Htemofiagellates in Lankester's Protozoa (39), as will be 

 seen by anyone who caves to compare that account with the 

 above pages. As a matter of fact, there is now no doubt 

 whatever that one of Schaudinn's far-reaching conclusions 

 was correct, name!}-, that vertebrate ti'ypanosomes undergo 

 a definite part of their developmental cycle in an invertebrate 

 host, and that true cyclical infection occurs by means of the 

 latter; for conclusive experimental proof has been recently 

 brought forward by Kleine, Bruce and others, Minchin and 

 Thomson. To indicate the work of these authors, however, 

 would be going outside the scope of this paper : moreover, in 

 this discussion, I have preferred to limit myself to the above 

 comparative observations, since most of them provided 

 material on which I relied for support in my article (I.e.). 



Patton has of late occupied himself in reiterating his view 

 that in all those instances considered above, as well as in 

 every other case where an author has purported to describe 

 phases of a trypanosome in an invertebrate, the parasites in 

 question were merely natural flagellates of the invertebrate, 

 which had no connection with a vertebrate host. Patton's 

 view is that of scarcely anyone else; even Novyand McNeal 

 have not gone quite so far in this wrong direction. I do not 

 intend to argue the matter with Patton ; a perusal of his 

 recent papers suggests that he is unable to appreciate Jirgu- 

 ment. In his latest review (20), Patton has adversely 

 criticised, in somewhat forcible terms, my article in Lan- 

 kester's treatise, chiefly because I have maintained the 

 opposite view to himself. I do not thiuk it necessary to 

 reply at length to Patton's remarks ; it is obvious that Patton 

 is hopelessly biassed, and in one or two places I consider he 

 oversteps the boundary of legitimate criticism. I venture to 

 say, however, in justice to my editor as well as to myself, 

 that if a student of tropical medicine and protozoology 

 follows Patton's judgments on our knowledge relating to the 

 hsemoflagellates and their allies, as set forth in his "critical" 

 review, he will obtain a distinctly erroneous and misleading 



