W. S. Patton 
131 
sure that he would not have stated that “ T.” bcdbianii more than 
resembles a Spirochaete, for it actually is a Spirochaete, and should now 
be called Spirochaeta bcdbianii (see Fantham, 1907—08). 
Treponema pallidum , which was found by Schaudinn in syphilitic 
lesions, is next discussed, but in a most incomplete manner. It is 
obvious Woodcock has not verified his references, for he states that 
Krzysztalowicz and Siedlecki “ in a recent memoir ” (the italics are ours) 
have given a detailed account of this organism ; the paper referred to 
was written in 1905 (see the Author’s References to Literature, p. 273). 
No mention is made of Krzysztalowicz and Siedlecki’s later paper 
(March 1908) on Treponema (Spirochaeta)pallidum, in which they state 
that the Spirochaetes should be placed in a distinct section of the 
Mastigophora for which they propose the name Spirillojlagellata. We 
do not entirely agree with the formation of such a group, but think the 
omission of any reference to this important paper is unfortunate. 
In dealing with the Spirochaetes, we note that Woodcock does not 
refer to any paper published since 1906, and most of those quoted by 
him are not later than 1905. It is unnecessary therefore to deal any 
further with his dogmatic assertion that the Spirochaetes are Bacteria. 
We are sorry to note the entire absence of figures of Spirochaetes, and 
that these organisms are less satisfactorily treated here than in his (1906) 
earlier article on the Haemoflagellates. It is a great pity that in a 
memoir, which claims to be comprehensive, the Spirochaetes, which are 
closely allied to the Haemoflagellates, are dismissed in a little more than 
a page, and are then only noted from a standpoint which is biassed and 
out of date. Woodcock has missed a great opportunity of giving a broad 
yet succinct account of the Spirochaetes in this English treatise of 
Zoology. 
In.the postscript Woodcock refers to Roubaud’s (1908) recent work 
on certain peculiar developmental forms of lethal trypanosomes in the 
proboscis of G. palpalis. We (1909) have recently criticised this work 
and pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the flagellates 
seen by Roubaud in the proboscis of G. pcdpalis are anything more than 
natural parasites of the fly. We have suggested that the various forms 
seen by Roubaud in this tsetse fly may quite well represent two distinct 
species; one of these may be G. grayi, and the other C. tullochi. 
Roubaud, as well as all the other observers who have studied these 
flagellates of tsetse flies, have failed to inoculate animals with them ; 
surely this fact proves conclusively that these parasites have nothing 
whatever to do with any lethal trypanosome. 
9—2 
