156 Crithiclia, Herpetommias, Trypanomma 
of a trypanosome, and until he can tell us this, let him attend to his own 
affairs and not meddle with other investigators’ work. 
Personally, I fail to see what the lengthy quotations from Woodcock’s 
paper on Avian Haemoprotozoa, based on hypothesis and analogy, have 
to do with the points originally raised by me. I am sorry to see 
Dr Woodcock descend to the borderland of personalities. What his 
opinions are of my own work is a matter of indifference to me. His 
mention of the names of Pi’ofessor Minchin, Miss Robertson, Capt. Patton 
and Dr Swingle may please him, but it has no relation to the argument. 
I do not intend to discuss in full his remarks relating to these workers; 
they have not yet published anything that supports him in answering 
the specific questions I raised. Regarding Professor Min chin’s opinions, 
however, I would remind Dr Woodcock that his esteemed chief has not 
yet published anything in support of his view—it is not to be expected 
that the Pi'ofessor will support fully in print any such crude hypotheses. 
Regarding G. melophagia, however, I may say that the Professor in his 
public lectures only last year, gave a synopsis of my work on this 
parasite, and needless to say there was no mention of such nonsense 
as an “onus probandi ” to show it was not a developing vertebi’ate 
trypanosome. 
Dr Woodcock makes a sweeping (and illicit) generalisation in 
stating that these parasites in blood-sucking Insects are “ phases of 
some Trypanosome.” He then states that this view, which according 
to him is the “ only reasonable, logical ” and “ commonsense ” one, “ has 
been conclusively proved by the work of Minchin and Thomson, in the 
case of the parasites of the rat flea.” Proof! Conclusively proved! 
I beg to differ and differ emphatically. Does Dr Woodcock know the 
meaning of the word “ prove ” ? I think not. The life cycle of 
Trypanosoma lewisi has been described in the rat flea, Ceratopliyllns 
fasciatiis, and the description of the cycle applies to T. leiuisi only and 
to no other parasite. Further, different life cycles of T. lewisi in the 
same flea have been given by Minchin and Thomson on the one hand, 
and by Swellengrebel and Strickland on the other. How far is 
Dr Woodcock—or any one else—at liberty to generalise on a single 
instance ? Of course, Dr Woodcock never stops to consider the great 
danger of rearing general hypotheses on a few instances that are really 
“random samples.” I commend the scientihc aspect of “random 
sampling ” to his careful study. The descriptions, then, of the life 
cycle of T. leivisi do not prove anything in general. So much for 
Dr Woodcock’s “reasonable and logical view ” and “ view of common- 
sense.” Dr Woodcock should know that G. tahani, G. melophagia, etc. 
