285 



hood of 1 mm in length. They present essentially the same condi- 

 tions, whether dorsicoles or discicoles, excepting in the extent of the 

 body cavity and the migration of the oocytes. But there are among 

 my material a few discicoles about 1 mm long in which the 

 oocytes have not yet left the ovaries (these must be "comple- 

 mental males" according to Beard!) while in several dorsicoles 

 of about the same size the migration is well under way 

 through the somewhat more extensive body cavity. In- 

 deed, no hard and fast line can be drawn either in internal 

 or in external structure between the larger dorsicoles and 

 the smaller discicoles. The only morphological distinction which 

 Beard is able to find is the unimportant and by no means constant 

 greater gibbosity of the dorsicole ". 



The admission that the ovaries ("Nans en's organs") are really 

 the ovaries oî Myzostoma would at once lignify Beard's "hard facts". 

 It pleases him, therefore, while admitting that there are "no reasons 

 for terming them rudimentary" to seek refuge in the assertion (p. 319) 

 that they "are probably the original sexual organs, which existed prior 

 to the adoption of the parasitic mode of life. They still function, but 

 not as the sole sexual organs. In the hermaphrodite they represent 

 ovaries, in the males testes" (sic!). These remarks, like many others 

 in Beard's paper, will be appreciated at their true value by any one 

 familiar Avith vermian morphology. The value of his opinion on 

 matters testicular is well shown by his figures of what he calls "sperm- 

 mother cells" (figs. 11, 13 and 15; each cell (?) containing four little 

 dots!), and his worthless fig. 14 shows the extent of his analysis of the 

 ovaries, even if this were not apparent from the magnification. 



Beard complains of my remarks concerning his much-vaunted 

 table based on old and (as his figures show) wretchedly preserved 

 material. Since it is Beard and not myself who is unable to recognize 

 young oocytes (he failed to see them even in my fig. 56!) one may 

 judge of the truth of his remark "no eggs" opposite the list of dorsi- 

 coles on p. 295. Since, moreover, ovaries full of oogonia or 

 young oocytes are present in all these forms, eggs must be 

 present, and the animals cannot be males "complementary" 

 or otherwise. As to his trivial insistence on the overlapping of the 

 stages indicated in his table, I may state that I am still of my former 

 opinion on such methods of observing and reasoning. His state- 

 ments in regard to uniformity of contraction are false as proved by 



" My figs. 19 and 25 show that this dift'erence did not escape me, but it was re- 

 cognized as inconstant and therefore omitted from my paper. 



