cation of one of them occur, which is analogous to -what took place in the 

 genus Ancylodiscoides (Fig. 65). Because of this the secondary nature of 

 the appearance of 5 plates instead of 3 by way of the bifurcation of the 

 2 usual lateral ones is probable. 



Thus, if one also takes into consideration that among Lepido- 

 trema the structure of the armature of the supplementary discs occupies, 

 so to speak, an intermediary position between Diplectanum and Rhamno- 

 cercus , because it consists of concentric rows of small thorn-shaped p. 358 



plates and of large thorns, a question arises whether or not to separate 

 or, to be more precise, to re-establish the subfamily Lepidotrematinae. 

 Unfortunately, at the present time we are not in a position to solve this 

 problem because we do not have a single species of Lepidotrema at our 

 disposal and their descriptions in the literature suffer from a number of 

 inaccuracies, particularly in connection with details of the structure of 

 the attaching apparatus. 



The family consists of Z subfamilies --Diplectaninae, Monticelli, 

 and Rhamnocercinae, Monaco, Wood and Mizelle. 



1. Subfamily Diplectaninae Monticelli, 1903 



(Figs. 14, 34, 56, 59, 70, 113, A, 181-188) 



Lepidotremininae Johnston and Tiegs, 1922 



Diplectanidae^ which have supplementary discs armed with 

 chitinous thorn-shaped little hooks or plates located in concentric rows; 

 sometimes the armature of these discs is supplemented by larger thorns 

 lying across or below the rows of thorn-shaped little hooks. The basic 

 attaching armature is with 2 (?)--3--5 connecting plates. 



Parasites of marine and fresh water Percoidae 



Type genus, Diplectanum Diesing, 1858. 



Six more genera also belong here: Diplectanocotyle Yamaguti, 

 1953; Lepidotrema Johnston and Tiegs, 1922; Lamellodiscus Johnston and 

 Tiegs, 1922; Pseudolamellodiscus Yamaguti, 1953; Squamodiscus Yamaguti, 

 1934; and Neodiplectanum Mizelle and Blatz, 1941. 



As regards the genus Squamodiscus, Price (Price, 1937b) 

 supposes that it is synonymous with the genus Diplectanum; however, 

 Yamaguti (Yamaguti, 1938) objects to this, in which objection he is 

 supported by Sproston (Sproston, 1946). We think that the opinion of 

 Price is correct but defer final judgment until a more detailed study of 



425 



