PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY. 751 



tunnelled out in a very distinct manner. Behind the elevation was a 

 substance like a lens, and below this a space caverned out, at the 

 lower end of which was a series of rods from which a number of 

 filaments proceeded, together with some pigmented matter, forming a 

 sort of choroid coat, a part of which projected forwards forming an 

 iris. The optic nerves i)roceeded directly upwards, so that there was 

 no turning over as in the eyes of the Pectens. In addition to the 

 specimens exhibited Professor Stewart illustrated his remarks by 

 drawings on the blackboard. 



Prof. Bell said that he thought the Society should know something 

 of the kind of work which was being done by Mr. Hill, who had 

 been assisting Prof. Moseley, and had made the model exhibited. 

 Whatever the general opinion of models might be, those who had any 

 experience could speak as to their great use for purposes of illustra- 

 tion in class instruction. 



Mr. E. G. A. Wright's letter with reference to Dr. Anthony's 

 criticism on his note on the structitre of the tongue of the blow-fly 

 was read as follows : 



" The February number of the Journal of the Eoyal Microscopical 

 Society is only just to hand. At p. 174, I note Dr. Anthony's letter 

 read at the January meeting of the Society, as to my observations on 

 the structure of the tongue of the blow-fly. I have looked up his 

 paper on ' The Suctorial Organs of the Blow-fly ' in the June number 

 of ' The Monthly Microscopical Joui^nal ' for 1874, and 1 at once dis- 

 claim any previous knowledge of it. I can only now regret that it 

 was unknown to me, as I should have certainly given all the credit 

 to Dr. Anthony for the discovery of the ' suctorial organs ' which he 

 so well earned by the long and arduous work he bestowed on this 

 subject during the whole of a blow-fly ' season.' After speaking of 

 bis numerous dissections, he says, ' Many a hundred coaxings were 

 necessary to get the parts into definite positions ere I could satisfy 

 myself of the arrangement of what I will venture to call the ' suckers ' 

 attached to the pseudo-tracheae of Diptera.' These suckers he likens 

 to ' earlike appendages,' ' mouse ears,' or ' bat's ears.' 



Before I sent the slide of the proboscis in September last, I con- 

 sulted all the most recent standard works on the Microscope, as well 

 as Mr. B. T. Lowne's ' Anatomy and Physiology of the Blow-fly,' and 

 I could not glean any information that the details of structure de- 

 Bcribed in my letter had been observed. This description was only 

 such as would suggest itself to any one conversant with anatomy. 



I hope I may be permitted to make this explanation so as to 

 show that Dr. Antliony's charge that I liavc plagiarized, although 

 not wilfully, must fall to the ground, and that it was, in fact, as ho 

 Buggcsts, a ' re-discovery.' 



1 wish to call attention to tho fact, that the proboscis of the 

 blow-fly as prepared and mounted by Mr. Sharp, requires no dissec- 

 tions or coaxings to display tho leaf-like processes or ' suckers ' in 

 silu. Under a sufficiently liigh power, they at the first glauco arrest 

 the obscrvcr'B attention, their visibility being entirely due to tho mode 



