250 C^'itliidia pulicis n. sp. 
he refers to Miss Mackinnon’s paper, makes uo mention of this observa¬ 
tion to which the author draws special attention and illustrates by 
text-figures. That is only another example of the method of partial 
quotation pursued by those who wish—by methods analogous to those 
of the party politician—to destroy the genus Crithidia. 
Again, in a short addendum Mr Dunkerly states that Flu in a 
recent paper on the parasites of the house fly “ in the main ” confirms 
“the chief points emphasised” by him. I am sorry that I cannot 
agree, for CritJndia is recognised by Flu as a genus, is defined by him 
and is kept separate from Leptomonas. 
More earnest endeavour to work out the life history of flagellates 
such as Leptomonas is emphatically needed. At present, the flagellate 
form only is at all adequately dealt with, and until the complete cycle 
has been obtained, hypotheses built on knowledge of the flagellate stage 
only cannot but be somewhat insecure. 
In conclusion, one is impelled to wonder whether research in Proto¬ 
zoology is to be conducted merely on the lines of party politics instead 
of the advancement of knowledge. Perhaps the seeming advocates of 
the former policy will re-consider their position. Apparently, Dr 
Woodcock, having written a thoroughly confused account of the Haemo- 
flagellates, is now to be allowed to edit the work of other investigators 
more capable than himself, and to support Dr Woodcock we are to 
have the inexperienced efforts of his henchmen, like Mr Dunkeily, who 
seems in the domain of Protozoology to be essaying to fly in an aeroplane 
before he knows how^ to walk. The whole procedure is unw'orthy of 
British Protozoology and contributes nothing to the extension of 
knowledge. 
Common sense dictates that the word of the practical worker is 
of more value than that of the “ arm-chair critic.” The statements of 
practical investigators like Patton, Flu and Swingle must be of in¬ 
finitely more value than the hypotheses of Woodcock, Hartmann and 
others who have not themselves investigated Crithidia. It is amusing 
to note that apparently the only writers who wish to destroy the 
validity of the genus Crithidia are those who have not published 
researches on the same, and so cannot be expected to have a first-hand 
knowledge of the genus. We have to work out complete life-cycles if 
we are to go forward, and all the wrangling over nomenclature and 
evolution will be of no avail in the end. However, time will tell. 
