The genus Encotyllabe is kno^vn from eight families of Perci- 

 formes, among which Sparidae bear the basic part of the species of the 

 genus, and four families do not have species which occur only among them. 

 The indication of the finding of Encotyllabe on Salmonidae demands verifi- 

 cation, however, it seems to us that it should not be taken into consideration. 

 It is based on the finding of Ishii and Sawada (Ishii and Sawada, 1938a) of a 

 new species of Encotyllabe on the gills of Onchorhynchus masu. We suppose 

 that Ishii and Sawada were dealing with samples which were consumed with 

 some perciformids- -their hosts--and which accidentally were retained in 

 the gill cavity of One, masu (Brev. )--a typically rapacious fish. This 

 supposition is rendered much more probable by the fact that all Capsalidae, 

 including Encotyllabe , are sufficiently mobile (to affect such transfers, nobis). 



In addition to that, in the list of Japanese Monogenoidea 

 (Yamaguti, 1943) it is indicated that the species of Ishii and Sawada is 

 synonymous with E. spari Yamaguti which substantiates our suppositions 

 even more. 



The genus Dactylogyrus is sufficiently well substantiated from 

 10 families (Table 14). The obviously faulty data about the presence of the 

 representatives of this genus on Esocidae are not included in that table, 

 for it is beyond doubt that these cases are linked with the finding on the pike 

 of the worms from the real host eaten by this fish. As a whole, the following 

 conclusions can be made about Dactylogyrus, namely, that this genus is 

 characteristic for Cypriniformes (more exactly for the suborder of 

 Cyprinoidei), on which 212 of the 221 known species are indicated and, as 

 an exception are encountered in other orders, but the latter are not in 

 genetic link with each other nor with the Cypriniformes. p. 263 



The genus Benedenia is indicated in natural conditions from 15 

 families (Table 14) and in addition to that it is encountered on 11 families Holocentridae, 

 Malacanthidae, Pomatomidae, Carangidae, Pomadasyidae, Labridae, 

 Acanthuridae, Triglidae, Balistidae, Ostraciidae and Diodontidae in 

 artificial conditions. Of the total number of 26 families, 19 belong to the 

 Perciformes which bear the basic mass of species of Benedenia. These 

 undoubtedly are fishes related to a certain degree. Apparently the indi- p. 264 



cation of the finding of two species of Benedenia on sharks (should be 

 skates, nobis) is correct, although it is a distant group of hosts from 

 Perciformes. As regards Holocentridae, Balistidae, Ostraciidae, and 

 Diodontidae, which are indicated as hosts for Benedenia, neither carries 

 a single independent species, and at the same time as was indicated above 

 (page 225 ), they are indisputably related to Perciformes. Finally, the 

 indication of the finding of Benedenia on Mugilidae is doubtful. These data 

 are based on the finding of B. monticelli only on a sample on the gills of 

 Mugil auratus Risso from the Mediterranean Sea and not by the authors 

 themselves (see Parona and Perugia, 1895). There were no additional 

 findings until the present time and one must think that there is an error 



298 



