19 



completeinent hors de doute dans son beau travail sur Rhizorhma . . .« This requires a 

 comment. I have proved the following facts. The males of Rhizorhina and of Herpyllobius 

 are not the larva. The larva fastens itself to the female by a gluey substance, after which 

 all its muscles etc. are dissolved; the limbs are emptied of their contents and the whole 

 plasma of the larva contracts and surrounds itself with a new skin , thus forming a male 

 without limbs, mouth or other external organs, and without visible internal organs except testicles 

 and their efferent ducts which gradually develop themselves. In the Rhizorhina this male 

 remains inside the skin of the larva, pushing its remarkable spermatic ducts out through 

 the hole in front of the mouth of this dead case. In the Herpyllobius the skin af the 

 larva bursts, the male fastens itself with its front, and the spermatic ducts proceed (behind 

 the attached end) through the split produced by the bursting of the larval skin. So in 

 both cases the male is transformed to such a degree as to render a morphological orientation 

 rather uncertain; at all events, we can no longer speak of »le voisinage de la bouche», as 

 there is no mouth at all. This description of the male of Herpyllobiidse will also give a 

 sufficient idea of the immense difference between this animal and the males of Choniosto- 

 matidae which, moreover, fix their spermatophores on the females in the usual way. 



The authors continue: »Chez tous les Sphceronellidce , les canaux g6nitaux males 

 servent aussi a l'excr^tion d'une substance c6mentaire avec laquelle le m&le se fixe sur la 

 femelle d'une fagon plus ou moins durable. Ce role nouveau et ces connexions singulieres 

 des canaux g6nitaux constituent a coup sur le trait le plus saillant de la morphologie de la 

 famille des Sphceronellidce, telle que nous la comprenons«, namely Choniostomatidse and Her- 

 pjdlobiidse together. The authors are bold indeed; they do not hesitate to suggest one 

 hypothesis after another, the second more erroneous than the first. Now, to begin with 

 Herp3 r llobiida3, who has said anything that could justify the statement that the genital organs 

 of the male secrete the viscous substance by which the animal attaches itself? The authors 

 have seen nothing themselves, and they cannot base their statement on my essay about 

 Rhizorhina, as I maintain that the larva of this animal attaches itself by a gluey matter 

 proceeding from the mouth before the male is developed and before there is any indication of 

 genital organs. The male keeps inside the skin of the larva, which remains attached to the 

 female, and no further fixation taJces place 1 ). How then must we qualify the sentence the 

 authors pronounce as if it were proved? To put it mildly, we can only call it a product 

 of imagination. — We shall now turn to the second division of their » SphceronelUdce^ : the 

 Choniostomatidae , and here again we shall have an opportunity of considering their above 

 quoted lines in italics: »Les canaux excreteurs des glandes genitales males d^bouchent dans 

 la partie cephalique de l'animal et dans le voisinage de la bouche«. 



') In the Herpyllobius th.3 male attaches itself a second time by its front end, but the genital aperture 

 is found at some distance behind this fixation (Entom. Meddel. 1. c. p. 230). 



3* 



