SUPPLEMENT 241 



liche Wochenschrift, who acknowledges that * he 

 personally is in direct opposition to Father Wasmann. 

 I am quite willing to agree with Professor Potonie 

 in believing that this evening discussion could not 

 have sufficed to bring about a mutual understanding 

 and a harmonising of our points of difference; it 

 would require years to effect such a result, as he 

 remarks in his report. Professor Dahl, too, was 

 perfectly right when he said, at the end of his address 

 at the evening debate, that in his opinion it would 

 be more expedient to attempt an explanation of 

 our divergent views in writing. Professor Dahl 

 expressed his desire that such an attempt should be 

 made, and others of my opponents, especially 

 Professor Plate, the chief speaker, would have done 

 well to disregard all that did not strictly form part 

 of the subject of my lectures, and not to impute 

 * theological intentions to me, when I was 

 absolutely devoid of them. Why was this not done ? 

 I believe it was chiefly because the discussion was 

 not limited to specialists, speaking before specialists, 

 as I had originally intended, but it was extended 

 to the general public. 1 



1 I proposed in the first instance to connect the discussion with a 

 private meeting of the German Entomological Society, which took place 

 on February 16th. Dr. Walter Horn, the President of the Society, who was 

 also on the Committee that organised my lectures, had invited to this 

 meeting the chief scientists, and especially the zoologists, of the University, 

 of the High School of Agriculture, and of the Koyal Natural History 

 Museum. Another member of the Committee, however, rejected my pro 

 posal, and insisted upon a public discussion. The meeting was very well 

 attended, and its interesting proceedings closed with cheers for the Jesuit 

 Father Wasmann. Cf. the report in the Germania of March 2nd, 1907. 



Q 



