W. COLE ON A TARASITE OF HUMBLE BEES. 101 



though thicker, than the male, being only ^th of an inch from one 

 end to the other." 



The male, in these early stages, presented no more tangible 

 evidence of structure than it usually does in summer, and nothing 

 in the nature of spermatozoa were to be seen in its interior. The 

 uterus of the female, however, contained " a very curious rod-like 

 body, composed of a great number of minute granules, united 

 together as if by some sticky substance. It lay with its lower end 

 close to the vulva ; and, in small specimens, seemed to distend the 

 uterus ; though, in larger ones, it lay quite free in the cavity." 

 Sir J. Lubbock conjectures that this body consists of a collection 

 of spermatozoa, agglutinated into a mass at the end of the ovary, 

 so as to fertilize each egg as it is pushed forward in the tube. In 

 the younger females he examined, the ova did not descend in the 

 uterus as far as the rod, but in more mature specimens they had 

 passed by it without altering its form. I believe a similar body is 

 found inoneo'f the annelids, and is also there regarded as a mass of 

 spermatozoa ; but as Lubbock could find nothing analogous in the 

 male, and no evidence exists as to the mode in which it is deposited 

 in the uterus, the exact nature of the " rod " in Sphceridaria remains 

 a doubtful point. 



In the above brief sketch of the anatomy of the parasite, I have 

 used Lubbock's nomenclature, in accordance with the opinions he 

 entertained in his Memoirs as to the relations and functions of the 

 various parts ; but, as I have before hinted, Schneider has recently 

 expressed a view as to the nature of Sphcerularia, which differs 

 completely from that adopted by previous writers. He considers 

 the small nematoid, described above as an epizoic male, to be the 

 true female, and the tuberculated worm attached thereto, to be 

 merely a gigantic prolapsed uterus growing out of it. I am in- 

 debted to the kindness of Dr. Cobbold, our greatest English hel- 

 minthologist, for this information, and he assures me that he is not 

 disposed to accept the view advocated by Schneider, but considers 

 Lubbock's to be the correct interpretation of the mystery. Many 

 of the facts could be explained equally well by either hypothesis ; 

 but, of course, if Schneider's assumption is correct, the male is still 

 unknown in its adult stage, and it must be searched for elsewhere 

 than in the bee's body. I have not been able to refer to Schnei- 

 der's work, to ascertain the reasons he gives for this opinion, but 

 I presume it is based, in some measure, on the known habits of 



