Through the courtesy of the Editors of Parasitology I have been favoured with an advance proof of the remarks of Dr Woodcock on a former note of mine relating to the procedure of the Recorder of the Protozoa section of the International Catalogue of Scientific Literature and the Zoological Record. In my article I raised three points. (1) In certain cases where the generic names Crithidia and Herpetomonas were placed in inverted commas in the Catalogue, I stated that no direct evidence existed to justify such a procedure. (2) I protested against such meddlesomeness on the part of the Recorder. (3) I stated that the Recorder, who had not worked on the parasites themselves, held, consequently, extreme views. Dr Woodcock's so-called reply has afforded me considerable amusement and it is a matter of surprise to me that he has been so ill-advised as to write such a poor rejoinder—he must know that he has made no answer to my remarks. That the weakness of his position is well known to him is shown by his recourse to the tactics of vituperation and innuendo, where he remarks that my method of criticism is “not straightforward but, on the contrary, distinctly oblique.” Dr Woodcock has no case and so has adopted metaphorically the old, old method of “abusing the plaintiffs attorney,” in the shape of discussing my own papers on parasites not originally under discussion. I am sorry that one who apparently claims to be an authority is reduced to such second-rate methods. While I regret the necessarily severe character of this, my rejoinder, it is impossible to deal otherwise with the numerous side issues raised by Dr Woodcock.