which we have already spoken (see page 259 ). In 1955 we received a small 

 annount of material of this species from Brama raii (L. ) from Naples and 

 on the basis of this we succeeded in establishing that it is very close to the 



type species of Winkenthughesi a-- 

 W. thyrsites (Hughes) a species 

 which should consequently be 

 named Winkenthughesia bramae 

 (Parona and Perugia, 1899) 

 Bychowsky, comb, nov. The type 

 of the family, Anthocotyle, is 

 undoubtedly a secondarily changed 

 genus because the enlargement of 

 the fourth pair of clamps, as we 

 have shown with L. F. Nagibina 

 (1954), is a new formation which 

 has an adaptive significance. The 

 status of the genus Vallisia (Fig. 

 6) in the family is uncertain. 

 Judging by the description of 

 Monticelli (Monticelli, 1912), this 

 genus differs from the two pre- 

 ceding ones not only by a peculiar 

 asymmetry of the body but also 

 by a number of important peculiarities 

 of internal organization. Thus, 

 according to Monticelli the copulatory 

 organ of Vallisia is deprived of 

 armature and the vaginal ducts are 

 also absent. Thus, if one should 

 consider these data as authentic, 

 Vallisia strongly differs from the 

 two preceding genera and the 

 simplification of its organization 

 is indisputably secondary. However, 

 we have certain doubts about the 

 data of Monticelli. Thus, his 



0.1 MM 



Fig. 301. Winkenthughesia bramae 

 (Parona and Perugia). A- -Adult 

 worm from the gills of Brama raii 

 Bl. Sch. from the Bay of Maple's 

 (Mediterranean Sea); B- -Artifically 

 unfolded clamp. 



p. 428 



description and representation of 

 the posterior end of the disc forces us to suppose that he did not notice 2 

 pairs of hooks besides the ones he has shown because the pair which was 

 indicated by him is undoubtedly the second (large) one of the middle hooks. 

 In the description of the sex system he does not indicate the presence of the 

 ^^"^^^s genito-intestinalis which cannot be absent in this genus. In this 

 connection, the data of Monticelli concerning the absence of vaginal ducts 

 arouses doubt. The teiminal openings of the excretory system expressed 

 by him on the drawiags of the sections (Table 2, G), hardly represent such-more likely these 

 are sections through the terminal part of the vaginal ducts and consequently 

 the excretory "ampules" expressed in the same plate in drawing 10 can 



512 



