10 



examined by Kroyer could be, but the suggestion that the large globules which, according 

 to his statement, contained a long, vermiform body of about half an inch or a little more 

 in length, should be females of a Choniostoma , indeed seems overbold to me, even in our 

 golden age of loose conjectures, and if we could really suppose Kroyer to have made such 

 extraordinary mistakes in his statements, we should indeed consider them worse than 

 worthless and deserving of everlasting oblivion. When in 1889 I read this passage by 

 Giard and Bonnier, I remembered, that while working at my previous investigation of 

 Choniostoma, I had perused the short paragraph in Kroyer's excellent monograph: >^Et Par 

 Bemserkninger om Snyltedyr paa Hippotyter« [»Some remarks about parasites on THppolyte-\ 

 (p. 262—65) without finding anything at all applying to the parasite I was going to describe. 

 On p. 371 the two authors write further: »I1 est singulier que Hansen ait laisse passer 

 inapereue l'observation de Weber, et surtout le passage beaucoup plus important de son 

 compatriote Kroyer«. I shall presently make a few remarks about Weber, and as far as 

 regards my overlooking Kroyer, I will only observe that it would certainly have been wiser 

 of Mssrs. Giard and Bonnier, whose success in finding a pretty good proof in favour of their 

 assertion was entirely owing to two rather unfortunate faults in translation, to consider 

 whether they themselves had not read Kroyer wrongly, before accusing me of having done 

 so, especially as this countryman of Kroyer's has repeatedly expressed his appreciation of 

 him, precisely in the report on the results of the Dijmplma-expedition, and who about twenty 

 pages earlier (p. 258) has pointed out Kroyer's description of small, but interesting, joints 

 in the antennae and in the mandible-palp in another Copepod. 



Concerning the censure of my ignoring Max Weber, I will make a few remarks. 

 In my dissertation: Fabrica oris Bipterorum, 1883 (Naturh. Tidsskr. 3 R. B. XIV), in order 

 to avoid unnecessary length, I did not mention all authors and their opinions, but confined 

 myself to the statement (p. 8) that I had made a rule of leaving out writers whom I did 

 not consider as having added new elements of importance to the existing knowledge of its 

 [the mouth's] structure, or its use for classification, or whose incorrect views had proved 

 to be of no importance. I have followed the same principle in later works, but it seems 

 that, in order to avoid the accusation of ignorance, I shall have to use the same precaution 

 as in my dissertation, where, immediately after the quoted passage, I enumerate the authors who 

 are not mentioned, because they are unimportant with regard to the subject in hand, though 

 they may be excellent in their treatment of other branches. I do not think that I had 

 noticed the above-mentioned erroneous observation by Max Weber before publishing my 

 essay (of which separate copies were distributed in July 1886), and I cannot tell now if 

 I should have quoted it, had I known it then, but, as a matter of fact, I had read and 

 understood it before I wrote the French resume (in which, as mentioned above, I corrected 

 my omission with respect to Salensky's (to me) important work) and I purposely forbore 

 mentioning Weber, considering Ms observations irrelevant, though four or five lines would 

 have been sufficient to reproduce their essence. The interest attached to his statements 



