160 Crithidia, Herpetomonas, Trypanosoma 
trypanosomes, as well as on other protozoological matters. A few years 
ago (1906) cultures of trypanosomes were valueless according to him. 
Now they are quoted as evidence. Are opinions based on such 
“weathercock” mental attitudes to be foisted upon the scientific public 
only to be abandoned in a short period when the writer has once more 
changed his views ? 
Dr Woodcock again states that his opinion is also “ the opinion of 
the great majority of Protozoological workers.” Up to the present, 
I am not aware that a poll has been taken of the workers on the 
Trypanosomatidae regarding this subject, but I could name at once 
at least six workers on this group, of international reputation, who 
certainly do not agree with that form of fallacy due to illicit generalisa¬ 
tion that is so characteristic of Dr Woodcock’s views, and who prefer 
facts to wild hypotheses. If appeal were made to them on the question 
whether flagellates occurring in blood-sucking insects were merely 
developing forms of trypanosomes, they would at once return the 
verdict “not proven.” From recent work it seems that evidence is 
steadily accumulating that natural flagellates of blood-sucking insects 
are more common than was supposed. The work of Bruce and his 
colleagues on the Crithidia of Tabanids and of Wenyon on Herpeto- 
monads in Stomoxys may at once be cited. The latter states that 
Stomoxys, “ occasionally harbours a Herpetomonas, evidently a parasite 
peculiar to itself” (p. 107). 
Reference has been made by Dr Woodcock in his reply' to the 
article on Haemoflagellates which he contributed to Lankester’s 
Zoology. One would like to enquire what Dr Woodcock’s views were 
at the time that article was written, seeing that in more than one place 
therein, the names Crithidia. and Herpetomonas are confused and placed 
as synonyms for one another. Very little has been said about 
Herpetomonas in Dr Woodcock’s reply, yet the treatment allotted it 
was every whit as reprehensible as in the case of Crithidia. 
Further, no mention whatever is made of the International 
Catalogue of Scientific Literature, but there is a somewhat defiant 
statement regarding Dr Woodcock’s future actions in the Zoological 
Record. His future procedure in that direction is no concern of mine 
in this article. If he likes to continue to spoil the Zoological Record 
by personal interpretations based on illicit generalisations, and the 
managers of the Record allow it, that will, in the end, harm few but 
himself and the Record. It is a matter for congratulation that there is 
still an International Catalogue of Zoological Scientific Literature and a 
