A. Porter 
159 
coining of new superfluous terms lately, and can well do without 
“ trypanomonad,” “ trypaniform,” “ onus probaudi,” etc., for a time. 
Regarding the quotation from Swingle’s paper (p. 131) I would 
point out that Crithidia ctenophthalmi was described from Ctenophthalmus 
agyrtes while the life history of T. lewisi has been followed in Cerato- 
phylliis fasciatus. It does not then necessarily follow nor indeed 
“ sti’ongly suggest ” that C. ctenophthalmi is a stage in the life history 
of T. lewisi. Even supposing it is shown later that T. lewisi may wholly 
or partially develop in Gtenophthalmns agyrtes, it is quite possible that 
some of the fleas may have a mixed infection of G. ctenophthalmi and 
developing forms of T. lewisi. I have reason to believe that G. cteno¬ 
phthalmi and crithidial forms of T. lewisi can be distinguished morpho¬ 
logically, but as I am not describing these parasites—that work belonging 
to another—I am not at liberty to say more, and I have no wish to 
emulate Dr Woodcock’s questionable example of being keen to edit 
other people’s work. 
Dr Woodcock gives a quotation from p. 141 of Swingle’s paper. 
The quotation is from a footnote and is incomplete. The sentence 
regarding G. melophagia printed in Swingle’s paper runs as follows:— 
“ While there is considerable evidence favouring his [Woodcock’s] con¬ 
clusion, it seems to me that there is still a possibility that G. melophagia 
is a true insect flagellate which has never been successfully introduced 
into the sheep’s blood, and that the trypanosome luhich he \Woodcoclc\ 
discovered is an entirely distinct form." I have italicised the part of 
Swingle’s statement that Woodcock has omitted, and leave my readers 
to draw their own conclusions as to Swingle’s opinion, and as to the 
honesty of the gentleman who has accused me of “ oblique ” methods. 
Further, I am glad that I am not yet reduced to making unauthorised 
quotations from private letters in support of my case, but after con¬ 
sideration of the above method of partial quotation, it is possible that 
if the full context of Swingle’s letter were given, we should again find 
something of the same nature. Incidentally, I, too, count Dr Swingle 
among my friends and have received letters from him relating to this 
subject as recently as May 26th, but I prefer to regard private letters 
as such and not to use them either in toto or in mutilated form to 
support any public controversy or to “puff” my own work. 
Dr Woodcock refers to his knowledge of the cultural forms of 
trypanosomes. I beg to differ as to the value of interpretations placed 
on organisms under q^uite unnatural conditions. It seems that 
Dr Woodcock has changed his views on the value of cultural forms of 
