17 



like those I have described in Rhisorhina; the two apertures mentioned and described by 

 the authors are the roots of these tubes. Separate copies of my essay about Rhizorhina 

 were distributed in July 1892 (one of them was sent to the authors). Their preliminary 

 note, in which they establish Salenshya, mentioning its »appareil fixateur en forme d'amphi- 

 disque ou de bouton de manchette«, is dated Sept. 25th 1893, but it is quite evident that, 

 at the time their manuscript was sent to the press, they had not read my essay. So, having 

 but one specimen of the animal to work upon, they committed the same mistake which I 

 had made with my first specimen of Rhizorhina: without having any idea of the tubular 

 system inside the host, I detached the visible part of the parasite, thus breaking the stalk 

 which united it to the hidden part. After what I have just said about their investigation 

 of the male Aspidoecia, I am quite justified in not trusting their statements in a question so 

 difficult as that concerning Salenshya, where their judgment rests on the examination of but 

 one individual. The result is that the genus Salenshya G-. and B. must be cancelled, being 

 established only on this one single character. Whether their species differs from Rhizorhina 

 Ampeliscce will have to be proved by ascertaining if the slight differences between our repre- 

 sentations of the males agree with facts. Though this on the whole may possibly be the case, 

 I doubt that they are right in stating that the larva of the parasite they describe has two 

 orifices for the ducts of the genital organs; I have only found one hole surrounded by a 

 somewhat thickened ring. 



The authors quote from their preliminary publication (p. 475 — 76) a long passage, 

 in which they suggest »progenese« and »dissogonie« in the male of Salenshya. They now 

 give up these theories, saying: »Les recherches de Hansen prouvent que chez Rhizorhina 

 la metamorphose regressive existe bien chez les males de ce genre A'RerpyllobiincB et 

 quelle est tout aussi accentuee que chez les Choniostomatince.« However, the last sentence 

 which is meant to establish a relationship between the two groups to each other, is very 

 misleading, as the male of Rhizorhina (and Herpyllobius) is a body entirely without limbs, 

 mouth or any other external organ or internal muscles, with nothing in fact but genital 

 organs, the male of any Choniostomatid whatever is a highly developed animal with anten- 

 nulse, a very complex mouth with mandibles, besides maxilluhe, maxillae and maxillipeds 

 with some joints, internal muscles etc. So in saying: »Ce charactere diff6rentiel [»pro- 

 genese« in Salenshya and other Herpyllobiidae] entre les deux sous-groupes ne peut done 

 etre maintenu«, they are perfectly right, but such a negative feature does not imply 

 any kinship. 



HoAvever, the principal points are contained in the following paragraph, and in 

 order to criticise it I am obliged to quote the last half of p. 476 and a little of p. 477 in 

 their paper; I will, however, divide the quotation into three parts. They write: »Le reste 

 de reorganisation concorde d'une facon remarquable , non seulement chez la femelle ou, en 

 raison de la degradation, toute comparaison peut sembler depourvue de valeur, mais aussi 

 chez les males et les embryons: meme tendance a la disparition de la deuxieme paire 



3 



