479] PSEUDOPHYLLIDEA FROM FISHES— COOPER 191 



Euchonis reperta, quae Bremserus mecum communicavit ad speciem insequen- 

 tem (praesertim parte anteriore) transitum faciunt;" and under B. infundibuli- 

 formis, the following species, concerning the same specimens: "... quae 

 parte anteriore cum B. proboscideum arguunt." Leuckart (1819:38, 42) ac- 

 cepted Rudolphi's two species and gave good figures of the scolices and anterior 

 ends of the same; but recognized two forms of B. proboscideus, viz., 



"a. Collo nullo; corpore medio sulcato. 



Habitat in Salmonis salaris appendicibus pyloricis. 

 b. Collo brevissimo; corpore medio non sulcato. 



Habitat in Salmonis Huchonis intestinis." 

 He further pointed out and corrected the errors of Pallas, Bloch and Goeze 

 regarding the scolex, and concerning B. infundibuliformis said : "Komme B. 

 proboscideus am nachsten, ist aber gewiss eine von ihm verschiedene Art, 

 obgleich Bremser . . . sagt, dass er beide Arten nicht gern trennen mogte.' ' 

 Bellingham (1844:252) was evidently the first to comment on the relation be- 

 tween the number of individuals of this species and the condition of the host, 

 when he said, "I have found the B. proboscideus in such numbers in the in- 

 testines and pyloric appendages of the Salmo salar as almost completely to 

 block up these parts, which contained nothing besides but a white tenacious 

 mucus. The fish in which they were most numerous were amongst the finest 

 in the market; which would help to prove, that in these animals at least, the 

 presence of entozoa in the alimentary canal is not to be regarded as the result 

 of disease." He pointed out the great variation due to different states of 

 contraction or relaxation of the scolex and segments and also that B. infundi- 

 buliformis from Salmo trutta " . . . resembles generally the B. proboscideus, 

 but dififers from it in some respects. " While Olsson (1867 :53) and Van Beneden 

 (1871:69) found only B. proboscideus, others recognized Rudolphi's two spe- 

 cies; so that it remained for Zschokke (1884:21-25) to compare the two species 

 in detail and point out that they must be considered only different forms of 

 the same species. Later investigations into the anatomy by Matz (1892 :110), 

 who, however, studied only the proboscideus form from Trutta trutta and Salmo 

 salar, were considered to have established this contention, altho Olsson (1893: 

 17) still reported both of the older species with some doubt as to the use of 

 the r-'me B. infundibuliformis. Blanchard (1894:701), Ariola (1896:280), 

 and In ,genbach (1896 :223) evidently accepted only the combination A bothrium 

 crassum (Bloch) which is now generally accepted. Ariola (1900:433), however, 

 called the species Bothriotaenia proboscidea (Batsch), thus disregarding the 

 fact that Batsch (1786:212) renamed Bloch's T. crassa. 



In general appearance the material studied agreed with the descriptions of 

 both B. proboscideus and B. infundibuliformis of the early writers; for the for- 

 mer type from Salmo salar, the Atlantic salmon, would at first sight be consid- 

 ered to belong to a different species from those taken from the fresh-water hosts. 

 The largest of the latter was one from a specimen of Cristivomer namaycush, 

 which measured 856mm. in length by a maximum breadth of 3mm., while the 

 largest from the salmon measured 754mm. in length, 6mm. in maximum 



