A. Porter 
161 
Bibliographia zoologica, in the latter of which, at any rate, meddlesome 
Recorders are not allowed to air their views. 
Dr Woodcock again by conjoining his opinions of me with those he 
holds of a most distinguished worker—an investigator to whom all 
workers on insect flagellates are for ever indebted—merely exposes 
again his ignorance of logic. Were I to reply to Dr Woodcock’s 
discourteous remark (p. 715 of his paper on Avian Haemoprotozoa), I fear 
I should be under the painful necessity of emphasising strongly his 
ignorance of certain matters on which he claims by his procedure to be 
an authority. However, I should like to voice the opinion of myself and 
other workers by quoting Swingle (p. 127), “ Patton’s works.. .on Crithidia 
and Herpetomonas have given such complete knowledge of their life 
histories that it is now possible to undertake upon sure footing the 
investigation of the changes which trypanosomes undergo in their 
intermediate hosts. Patton’s criticisms deserve the highest praise for 
the part they have served in showing the imperative care that must be 
exercised against drawing unwarranted conclusions.” 
Before concluding I should like to remark on a general proposition 
put forward by Woodcock in his paper on Avian Haemoprotozoa (p. 711), 
“ Parasites exhibiting a trypaniform condition in a blood-sucking insect 
must be considered as belonging to the life cycle of a vertebrate trypano¬ 
some until the contrary is definitely established.” I consider that this 
proposition is quite unnecessary. Dr Woodcock may try to justify it 
by referring to his definition of “ trypaniform ^ ” (a thoroughly bad term, 
be it noted, for it is a Graeco-Latin hybrid). The definition of trypani¬ 
form given is a certain condition characteristic of a trypanosome in 
which the kinetonucleus^ lies much nearer to the aflagellar end than 
does the trophonucleus. Accepting his definition of “ trypaniform,” his 
general proposition is mere tautology. Most zoologists and certaitdy 
all protozoologists have seen trypanosomes and are acquainted with 
their form, so that there is no need of this attempt to foist a so-called 
general proposition of useless verbiage on a long-suffering scientific 
public. I am very sorry to see this verbiage copied into the Bulletin 
of the Sleeping Sickness Bureau (May, 1911) and placed in italics therein. 
A trained protozoologist would not have wasted valuable space in 
reprinting such meaningless verbosity. 
1 “Kinetonucleus” and “ trojahonucleus ” are two more examples of Dr Woodcock’s 
powers of coining terms, as well as further examples of his etymological attainments and 
fondness for ugly hybrids. 
