287 



ference in the life history of M. rirriferum and that of M. (jlahrum^ 

 that in the former what he believes to be the young forms are never 

 dorsicolous like certain small ones in the latter.'' Now the reader will 

 doubtless infer that Prouho's "shrewd" remark was made in con- 

 nection with J/, cirriferum, but it was hardly even as "shrewd" as 

 this, for it was made with reference to M. alatum ^ a form which, as 

 Prouho himself observed, has dorsicoles, that become hermaphrodite 

 Avhile still attached to the larger individuals 'oi And, of course, 

 Beard would not quietly have ignored M. alatmn. — No, indeed! He 

 mentions this to him extremely inconvenient species, so very closely 

 related to M. glahrum, once at the very end of his latest paper, in a 

 misleading phrase as having dorsicolous males "afterwards becoming 

 female". According to the principles adopted by Beard and Prouho, 

 the man who has dissected a horse would be right in regarding it as a 

 dioecious animal, but if he should for the first time in his life see a 

 zebra passing in a circus procession, he might be justified in writing 

 all his friends that the latter animal was hermaphrodite, or a "comple- 

 mental male", or even an asexual mammal! 



It is unnecessary to consider at length Beard's remarks con- 

 cerning the cysticolous and entoparasitic species. In obedience to his 

 non-comparative method Beard makes no observations of his own on 

 any of these species biit spends much time distorting and vilifying the 

 observations of others in his desperate attempt to save his pet, the 

 "complemental male" of Ji. (jlahrum. My work on M. pulcinar is dis- 

 missed with a misrepresentation (p. 320) which may pass without com- 

 ment, and the following remark: "apparently since Wheeler's 

 manuscript left his hands Prouho has directly challenged his con- 

 clusions". The fact that the manuscript had already left my hands 

 before Prouho's article appeared, proves, of course, that I was mis- 

 taken in regard to M. ptdvina?-] To my knowledge, Prouho has 

 not reverted to this subject since my paper was published, and I take 

 this to mean, till that gentleman makes statements to the contrary, 

 that he either acquiesees in my view, or does not AVish to insist on his 

 interpretation of M. pulvinar as a dioecious species. Till I am proved 

 to be wrong I shall continue to regard Beard's remarks on this subject 

 as so many gratuitous assertions. 



The sexual phases of Myzostoma are hardly of sufficient general 

 importance to justify more extended comment on Beard" s paper, 

 abounding as it does in misunderstanding, misrepresentation and futile 



10 Like the » side wall« hermaphrodites of M. glahrum, which should be a much 

 greater source of discomfort to Beard than they appear to be. 



