122 
REVIEW. 
write such sentences as these. Every well-meaning man of 
science must concur with Dr. Cobbold in the ideas he thus 
forcibly expresses. Upon an array of workers of Dr. Cobbold’s 
stamp a nation may justly look with pride.” The writer 
adds: “ Altogether, we cannot speak too highly of Dr. Cob- 
bold’s book, and congratulate the author warmly upon 
having so efficiently filled a gap in zoological literature, the 
existence of which had long been felt by all working 
naturalists.” 
Lastly, to return to our medical contemporaries, 
the Edinburgh Medical Journal, for November, 1879, 
devotes considerable space to the work before us. After 
remarking, with dry humour, that the word “ helmin¬ 
thology ” is very apt to be “ irreverently shortened into 
worms,'” the reviewer goes on to say that “no man has 
laboured more diligently and earnestly in a sphere, the 
importance of w r hich even zoologists, not to speak of phy¬ 
sicians, are often slow to recognise than Dr. Cobbold. Of 
British helminthology it is not too much to say he is the 
practical founder.” Further on, in connection with the 
known prejudices everywhere exhibited on this subject, the 
writer says, “ We have remarked upon the apparent non¬ 
chalance with which such a study is received by the medical 
world at large. Perchance Dr. Cobbold would go so far 
with us as to say that downright discouragement was the 
better term to apply to the treatment which the study (of 
parasites) has ofttimes had to fight against when treading 
the via medica .” In the final paragraph of the review 
the following sentences occur at intervals. “ The reader, 
zoologist, or physician, will find therein all necessary infor¬ 
mation concerning known parasites and their life-histories. 
The information is thoroughly up to date. The volume is 
essentially and really a new history of parasites, presenting 
itself as a standard work. We end as we began, by heartily 
recommending Dr. Cobbold’s last production as a valuable 
contribution to the history of entozoa.” 
Here our review of the various reviewers’ friendly writ¬ 
ings must close, with the addition only of one or two special 
corrections at the author’s request. Whilst there are several 
trifling mistakes of which no particular notice need be 
taken, the unfortunate spelling of Siedamgrotzky’s well- 
known name (erroneously at p. 247 and p. 281) is an error 
for which the author wishes us to apologise on his account. 
A very obvious and serious mistake also occurs (at p. 118), 
where the group of echinococcus-heads is represented as 
magnified about 25 diameters, instead of 250 diameters. 
