974 General Notes. [November, 
in the same direction do Sars, Weismann? Rougemont, Gam- 
roth,’ Hoek,® Haller and others more or less decide upon the 
olfactory nature of the organ of Leydig. 
Jourdain (40) does not accept this opinion, and Wrzésniowski’ 
adopted the views of Milne-Edward and La Valette. The 
“calceoli” of Amphipoda might be regarded as organs of smell. 
There was still some opposition to Leydig’s opinion that in 
the insects the sense of smell'is localized in the antennz (teeth 
and pits),and here the work of Hensen? might be mentioned, 
which in 1860 had a decided influence upon the conclusion of some 
inquiries, 
Thus Landois (15) denied that the antennz had the sense of 
smell, and declared that the pits in the antennz of the stag beetle 
were auditory organs. In like manner Paasch (16) rejected Ley- 
dig’s conclusion, while he sought to again reinstate the old opin- 
ion of Rosenthal as to the olfactory nature of the frontal cavity 
of the Diptera. In spite of the exact observations and interesting 
anatomical discoveries of Forel’ in ants, made in 1874, there ap- 
peared the great work of Wolff on the olfactory organs of bees, 
in which this observer, with much skill and acuteness, sought to 
give a basis for the hypothesis of Kirby and Spence that the seat 
of the sense of smell lay in the soft palatine skin of the labrum 
within the mouth. Joseph (18), two years later, drew attention 
to the stigmata as olfactory organs, referring to the olfactory gir- 
dle, and Forel” sought by an occasional criticism of Wolff’s con- 
clusions to prove experimentally the olfactory function of the 
antenne ; but Graber,” in his much-read book on insects, defend- 
ed the Wolffian “nose” in the most determined way, and denied 
to the antenne their so often vindicated faculty of smell. In 1879 
Berté (52) thought he had observed in the antenna of the flea a 
distinct auditory organ, and Lubbock” considered the organs of 
1 Sars: Histoire naturelle des Crustacés d’eau douce de Norvège, Christiania, 
I 
z Weismann © Ueber den Bau und der Lebenserscheinungen der Leptodora bys 
lina, Zeits. f. w. Zool., xxiv. 
3 Rougemont : Naturgeschichte des Gammarus puteanus, Miinchen, 1875, % 
* Gamroth : Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Naturgeschichte der Caprellen, Zeits. ee 
Zook; xxx1, 1878. — 
$ Hoek : Carcinologisches in Tydschr. d. Md. Dierk. Vereen. Deel, 1v, 102. 
ë Haller : Der Leemadipodes filiformes, Zeits. f. w. Zool., XXXII, 1880, 368. i 
“és momit : Vorl. Mittheilung über einige Amphipoden. Zool. Anzeigen, , 
466, 1879. 
„S Hensen: Das Gehörorgan der Decapoden. Zeits. f. w. Zool. x11, 1863. Das 
 Gehörorgan von Locusta. Zeits. f. w. Zool. XvI, 1886. f 
__ * Forel: Les Fourmis de la Suisse. Neue Denkschr. Allg. Schweiz. Gesellsch. £- 
= d. ges, Naturw. XXVI, 1874. 118, 144. ee 
- Tita Der Giftapparat u. d. Anal-driisen der Ameisen. Zeits. f. w. Zool. XXX. 
™ Graber: ‘Die Insekten, Miinchen, 1877. 887 
M Lubboc $ On some points in the anatomy of ants. Monthly Micr. Journ., 1987» 
