258 ILLINOIS BIOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS [258 



omologa analoga a quella che si osserva in altri cestodi (capsule uterine, od 

 ovariche Auct.). La quale, come altrove ho dimostrato [Monticelli, Fr. Sav. — 

 Sulla cosidetta subcuticola dei Cestodi, in : Rend R. Ace. Sc. Napoli, Fasc. 7-12, 

 Luglio-Decembre 1892 (sul princpio dove parlo dell'uovo dei Cestodi e ne riassumo 

 lo sviluppo).] nulla ha da vedere col guscio delle uova essendo essa una forma- 

 zione molto diverso, secondaria e posteriore : circa l'origine di questa, oltre quanto 

 ho espresso nel citato mio lavoro, veggasi pure il Diamare [Diamare, V. — II genere 

 Dipylidium, in: Atti R. Accad. Sc. Nap. (2) Vol. VI. N. 7, 31 pp, 3 Tavole]. 

 Capsula queste che ritengo possa e debba venir interpretata come una sorte di 

 cocon e corrispondente a formazioni del genere che si osservano nelle uova di 

 altri animali e ne circondona il guscio." 



Since Smith's specimens of Taenia eunectes Smith came from a host 

 which is not uncommon in American zoological gardens and since his 

 paper will probably be widely referred to by American investigators 

 more specific attention is called to certain misinterpretations in the 

 description and delineation of this species by Smith (1908). His figure 4, 

 PL III which has not been reproduced shows very clearly that he con- 

 sidered this form to be a species of Taenia. His attempt to make the 

 organs of this species agree with those of Taenia has resulted in consid- 

 erable confusion. The organ which he has labelled the vagina is the 

 cirrus-pouch and vice-versa. The receptaculum seminis of his labelling 

 is the mass of coils of the vas deferens. The lateral vitellaria he has 

 omitted entirely. He labels vitellaria that mass of coils comprising the 

 organs of the interovarial space. The ovary in this species is never 

 connected with the uterus as he figures it, but always through the single 

 oviduct, ootype, and uterine passage as has been figured (Figs. 99, 104). 

 The writer has never seen the lateral pouches of the uterus in this 

 species or in any species of Ophiotaenia as Smith figures them. The 

 uterus which he figures is characteristic of Taenia, not of a Proteoceph- 

 alid. Unfortunately the writer has not been able to examine a proglot- 

 tid from the material received from Smith that was in the same state 

 of development as that shown in his figure. The writer has, however, 

 examined younger proglottids and these in every case and in every 

 essential particular agreed with the specimens received from other 

 sources. 



There can be no doubt that Smith's specimens belong to the species 

 Crepidobothrium gerrardii Monticelli, hence the name Taenia eunectes 

 is a synonym of C. gerrardii and should be suppressed. 



This is the only known species in the genus Crepidobothrium. It 

 finds its nearest congeners among the larger species of Ophiotaenia. 

 While in the structure of the proglottids and in the arrangement of the 

 genital organs this species agrees almost perfectly with the Ophiotaenia 



