Incidentally, in describing G. medius Kathariner indicated M. fossilis 

 as first (or primary, nobis) host, and C^ carpio- -the second. Thus, in 

 the Russian literature the species which is taken for G. medius is not the 

 species which should be so called because the species from M. fossilis 

 should figure under this name. This question undoubtedly should be submitted 

 to a special discussion, but it is not within the frame of the present work. 



be excluded from the group being examined and transferred into the group 

 which has only one species of host. Gyrodactylus fairporti is indicated 

 from .Cyprinus carpio L. (Cyprinidae) and Ameiurus melas (Raf. ) 

 (Ameiuridae). This is undoubtedly a mistake and two different species 

 are understood under one name and consequently G. fairporti actually 

 must be considered as encountered on one species of host, 



Microcotyle mouwoi is indicated by authors (a single finding) 

 from Siganus fuscescens (Hout. ) (Siganidae) and Epinephelus chlorostigma 

 (Cuv. and Val, ) (Serranidae). There are no commentaries whatsoever 

 concerning the number of the findings in the work of Ishii and Sawada 

 (Ishii and Sawada, 1938a). The fishes belong to different suborders of the 

 perciformids which stand far from each other. 



Tetrancistrum sigani is encountered by a number of authors p. 235 

 on Siganus fuscescens (Hout. ) and indicated by Ishii and Sawada on 

 Epinephelus chlorostigma (Cuv. and Val. ) in the same work where the 

 preceding species is described. Just as it was about Microcotyle 

 mouwoi nothing can be said about the relations of the host. Although this 

 may never be substantiated, it seems to us that Ishii and Sawada were 

 mistaken in determining the second species of fish and consequently their 

 data are incorrect. 



Pseudaxine indicana, described by Chauhan (Chauhan, 1945) 

 from the gills of Chrysophrys berda (Forsk) (Sparidae),was later dis- 

 covered by Manter (Manter and Prince, 1953) on an undetermined fish 

 (local name, 'salala" ) from Scombridae. Both families of hosts are 

 quite removed from each other. 



Trochopus brauni and Megalocotyle zschokkei were described 

 by Mola (Mola, 1912) from the skin of Cottus gobio L. (Cottidae),but 

 are undoubtedly parasites of other fishes belonging to the family Triglidae. 

 The indication by the author of the species that he discovered the 

 worms on fishes purchased in Rome and that they were present in the 

 common basket with marine fishes, serves as a basis for such a con- 

 clusion. Just as all the other representatives of both genera are en- 

 countered only on marine fishes, it is more probable that here took 



261 



