As regards the connecting plates of the naiddle hooks, the 

 data about them are also not always correct. Thus, we have already 

 indicated the errors concerning this in connection with Ancyrocephaloides . 

 Likewise inexact are the data about Parancyrocephaloides in whichj 

 during the careful examination of nnaterial^we have established that 

 there exists not only a single connecting plate between the ventral hooks 

 but also near each of the dorsal hooks there is a small plate which 

 appears undoubtedly as a result of the bifurcation of the second con- 

 necting plate which existed anaong the ancestors. Thus, annong the 

 representatives of this genus there isn't one but three connecting plates. 

 Further among Empleurosoma one connecting plate between the ventral 

 pair of middle hooks is indicated, whereas near the dorsal (lateral, 

 according to the authors) pair --one supple nnentary plate near each hook; 

 apparently actually these plates merge along the median line of the body 

 and form a common connecting plate. Thus, the basic mass of genera 

 has two connecting plates; in rare cases one of them (the first judging 

 by the time of embryonic development) bifurcates and more rarely the 

 same thing happens with the second (Ancyrocephaloides). One mono- 

 typic genus --Protancyrocephalus, in which the middle hooks are 

 altogether without connecting plates, forms an exception. 



The internal anatomy of the representatives of this sub- 

 fannily has been studied even more poorly than the details of the attaching 

 apparatus, in connection with which one cannot consider all the genera 

 attributed here as fully iegitinnate and probably part of them will be made 

 synonymous with others during further research and part will require 

 further subdivision into separate smaller but independent genera. We do 

 not have the opportunity at the present time to dwell on this question in 

 detail; however, we shall attempt to substantiate the correctness of 

 what has been said before by two examples. Thus, Price (Price, 1937b) 

 indicated that the gfenus Haliotrema amalgamates species which are very 

 different from each other. As the research of A. V. Gussew (1955), 

 which has already been mentioned (see page 232 ), showed later^one 

 species of Haliotrema --H. nnogurndae Yamaguti- -was clearly attributed 

 to this genus erroneously and it should have been transferred into the 

 genus Ancyrocephalus s. lat. One can surmise that H. xesuri Yamaguti 

 (see page 259 ) also does not belong to Haliotrema but is a representative 

 of a special genus. Thus, apparently 6 species parasitizing Mullidae 

 belong to Haliotrema and it is possible that there are three more species 

 from other fanmilies. ^ However, we must not exclude the possibility that 



_ 



H. lutianai Yannaguti fronn Lutianidae, H. ornatum Yamaguti from 

 Apogonidae, and H. caesionis Yannaguti from Pomadasyidae. None of 

 these three species are known to us because they are described in work 

 (Yamaguti, 1953) which is not in the libraries of Moscow and Leningrad. 



414 



