Herein lies the essential conclusion of the work upon _Pentatoma_, which, so far as a specific retraction is concerned, stands yet. If this be abandoned, then the first work upon the chromatin structure of _Pentatoma_ is practically discredited, for Montgomery has definitely retreated from his positions concerning the absence of the “chromatin nucleolus” in the spermatogonia, the non-occurrence of a longitudinal cleft in the spireme thread, the lack of an equational division of the chromatin in the spermatocyte, the origin of the “chromatin nucleolus,” and the fragmentation of the “chromatin nucleolus.” In addition to these specifically acknowledged errors, we may infer that Montgomery (=12=) considers himself at fault in his views upon the production of chromosomes from the “three to six chromatin loops” by breaking apart in the prophase, and upon the occurrence of both longitudinal and cross divisions of ordinary chromosomes in the same mitosis. The observations recorded in his last paper (=15=) upon the production of the spermatocyte chromosomes by the end-to-end union of those in the last spermatogonial division warrant this assumption. It follows from all this that we may practically disregard Montgomery’s earlier work upon chromosomal structure and take his views as expressed in the later papers (=14=, =15=) as representing his opinions upon the subject. These later theories are largely the result of his investigations upon _Peripatus_, but they seem to be carried over and applied to the Hemiptera without essential modifications, and we may regard this concept as applicable to the forms studied by him. I called attention in my previous paper to the fact that, by many investigators, the definitive form of the chromosome is used as the basis for determining the direction and sequence of the chromosome divisions. This fact and the danger attending the practice was partly realized by Montgomery in his work upon _Euchistus_ (=12=), for he devotes considerable space to a consideration of the prophase segments, but in determining the character of the second spermatocyte division he regards only the formed element. With respect to this he says: “And now a fact may be determined which is of the greatest importance in estimating the morphological value of the second division of the chromosomes. While the latter are still parallel to the axis of the spindle, there may be clearly seen in some cases a transverse constriction on some of the chromosomes, so that they already acquire a dumb-bell shape.” This constriction is not correlated with any similar one on the prophase elements, and is here observed for the first time.