240 Leucocytozoa 
Doflein (1909) adopts a similar view in bis recent treatise on the 
Protozoa. 
At the end of his article, after accusing me of many mistakes that I 
have not committed, Mr Wenyon is forced to admit that “the sug¬ 
gestion at the end of the review of a new generic name seems to 
indicate some doubt even in Miss Porter’s mind as to the validity of 
this grouping.” Needless to say, had I not been fully cognisant of 
differences between the avian and mammalian parasites, I should not 
have put forward the new descriptive name Leucocytogregarina for the 
haemogregariniform parasites of the leucocytes of mammals. 
In several places in my article ( e.g . pp. 256, 264) I state that the 
structure and life history of avian Leucocytozoa are still subjects of con¬ 
troversy; therefore they are open to differences of opinion. Mr Wenyon 
ignores this, and proceeds to use such loose statements as that on p. 64 
where we read that “ It is evident that Miss Porter has no knowledge of 
the Leucocytozoon of birds for her survey of the group is inaccurate and 
contradictory.” Such dogmatic assertions regarding a worker with 
whom he is unacquainted personally, and ot the extent of whose in¬ 
formation be lias no first-band knowledge, need no further comment 
from me, except that scientific research is considered to engender a 
spirit of toleration accompanied by a broad outlook, hardly compatible 
with such assertions as the one quoted above. It may, however, give 
some slight satisfaction to Mr Wenyon, as well as confidence to scien¬ 
tific workers generally, to know that I have an intimate personal 
knowledge of the Leucocytozoa occurring in the domestic fowl, the 
sparrow, the lark, the Scotch grouse and the guinea fowl—some of 
which parasites have never been described or recorded in England 
till now. I fear, therefore, that in this case it is the statement of 
Mr Wenyon that is “inaccurate”—as well as unwarranted. 
I must crave the indulgence of my readers in that I have no choice 
but to enter more fully into certain of the criticisms passed on the 
short general review that I wrote last year. 
An appreciable proportion of Mr Wenyon’s paper consists in the 
setting forth of what he is pleased to term the characters ol Leucocyto¬ 
zoon and of the leucocytic parasites of mammals. 
Regarding the third of these characters (this Journal, Vol. ill. 
p. 65) Mr Wenyon is wrong in laying great stress on the Leucocytozoa 
of birds causing the host cell to assume a characteristic spindle form. 
Mathis and Leger have described Leucocytozoon caulleryi from the 
domestic fowl of Tonkin, and L. marchouxi from Turtur humilis neither 
of which causes any assumption of a spindle shape by the host cell. 
