T 
E 
== 
| 
be 
i 
AN 
Peer = 
E ete 
F. 
w ARK S Se a PE ET AAS AB 
A Anca, TAN ny re SRC: a u ME MED 
IO 
getting together. This I had then neither time nor inclination to 
ea because, to use the language of one of his own letters to me: 
‘I want facts and ideas, and do not care who publishes.” [8] 
7. I cannot see why not. He has referred in a foot-note 
to a previous print in the ‘‘ Scientific American; why not 
to mine, which antedated both his publications ? 
8. This extract from a letter probably refers to a paper 
on the three genera, at all events I know that his first 
sketches of the mouth, in which he differed radically with 
me, placed the matter outside of argument. 
What is it then that Dr. Horn claims? Not priority of announce- 
ment, because that is admitted for him in my paper. Not priority 
of publication, because I have made no claim to it [9]... The 
omission” to refer to his paper I have explained. It remains only 
to add that Dr. Horn had no justification from my intercourse and 
correspondence with him, for supposing that I could have had any 
other reason for the “omission,” or that I shall fail to refer to his 
paper when occasion permits. The reclamation cannot refer to pri- 
ority of discovery, because Dr. Horn had the best of reasons to 
know that I had the larva long before he obtained it, for I had in- 
formed him of the discovery already in October, 1887. That he 
should have ignored this fact in his announcement before our Wash” 
ington Society will be thought by some. “inexcusable,” and will 
explain why, as stated in the beginning, I was amazed at his card [10]. 
| much preferred to attribute the neglect to forgetfulness and to be- 
lieve that one whose work I had always admired was above the petty 
jealousies and narrow personalities which too often mar the conduct 
and writings of specialists [11]. 
9. I claim, and Dr. Riley admits, priority of announce- 
ment and publication, and I also claim, by the most strin- 
gent copyright law known, the right to have my discoveries 
and scientific deductions acknowledged by others, more 
particularly by those to whom they have been personally 
made known. 
10. No one did know until now that I ignored the pos- 
session of specimens by Dr. Riley, as I was careful to men- 
tion them in my paper, and Dr. Riley even complains 
P 
o PE = 
NÍ 
r: 
(under [3] ) that my date is ‘‘ unjustified and misleading’ 
because I failed to watch the mechanical part of a printer’ s 
work, 
11. While I thank Dr. Riley for his complimentary closing 
words, I think there will be found no evidence of ‘petty 
Jealousies and narrow personalities’? in my reclamation, 
but a demand for credit for work done, especially when 
that work is the result of my own unaided labor in the in- 
ervals of a busy professional life. 

