" 1. A net extended does not arrest the flight of insects in every 



" 2. During flight the insects act as if they did not see the meshes 

 of the net." 



" 3. A direct passage by flying is always rare. In the great majority 

 of cases the insect hurls itself upon the net where it rests on one of the 

 threads, and then passes through as any other animal would go through 

 an opening which it discovers." 



" 4. The only explanation possible for these facts rests on the defec- 

 tive vision due to the compound eyes of Insects. The threads of the 

 net produce in the insect an illusion of a continous surface, just as the 

 cross-hatchings of an engraving do for a human eye. The Arthropod 

 believes itself to be confronted by an obstacle, more or less translucent, 

 in which it can perceive no openings." (Bull. Acad. Rov. Sciences 

 Bruxelles, Nos. 9-10. 1895.) 



Dr. Baur on my Drawings of the Skull of Conolophus 

 subcristatus Gray. — In the No. of the Naturalist for April (last p. 

 238), Dr. Baur criticises Steindachner's drawings of the skull of the 

 above species and my copies of them published in the Naturalist for 

 February, p. 149. He says of the former : " These drawings have not 

 been made to show the detailed relations of the different elements of 

 the skull. Especially the regions copied by Cope are drawn quite 

 insufficiently. The sutures between the different elements can not be 

 made out." To this I have to remark that the sutures between the 

 quadrate and adjacent bones are distinctly drawn, and can be made 

 out perfectly well by any one familiar with the subject, but some of the 

 others are less distinct. Dr. Baur then goes on to say that " Prof. 

 Cope's drawing are not exact tracings from Steindachner for he has 

 drawn sutures which do not exist at all in Steindachner's figure. 

 There is no such suture between the postorbital. Pob, and his super- 

 temporal, St., in the actual specimen, nor in Steindachner's drawing. 



* * In Prof. Cope's figure the outer and upper portion of the 

 distal end of the paroccipital process separates the parietal process 

 from the prosquamosal (supratemporal Cope.) This is not the case ; 

 the parietal process is always united with the prosquamosal. * The 

 prosquamosal (supratemporal Cope) is also drawn quite incorrect ; 

 besides, its true relations cannot be made out at all from Steindachner's 



It will be noticed that in the above criticism nothing is said about 

 the articulation of the quadrate with the exoccipital, which is the 



