the system). Sproston includes them into Anthocotylinae (^Anthocotylidae 



according to our system); however, this is practically not justifiable. 



As regards Tagia, this monotypic genus may be attributed with equal 



success both to Anthocotylidae and Discocotylidae. The re -examination 



and clarification of the questions about the presence of hooks of the 



attaching apparatus among Tagia during any stages of the development is 



necessary. The second, also monotypic genus, Hemttagia , seems 



doubtful to us altogether and we think that the only discovered sample of p. 447 



this genus is incomplete, having a partially torn off disc. This doubt is 



increased by the fact that the author of this species (Meserve, 1938) 



suspects the same. If it is so, thenthe question about the generic independence 



of Hemitagia galapagensis Meserve, 1938, possibly will be solved negatively. 



In addition to that, in the systematic part there is no indication 

 of the genus Allodiscocotyle Yamaguti, 1953. This monotypical genus is 

 described by Yamaguti in a work (Yamaguti, 1953) which we did not possess, 

 as we have said before. Inasmuch as we have divided Discocotylidae as 

 understood by the preceding authors into several families, it is difficult to 



say to which of them this genus belongs. In any case, one can almost be 

 certain that it does not belong to Discocotylidae in our understanding. ^ 



_ 



Supplement to the galley proofs. Recently we received three more 

 works of Hargis, (W. J. Hargis from his series "Monogenetic Trematodes 

 of Gulf of Mexico Fishes. " Part V. July, 1955, Trans. Amer. Micro. 

 Soc. LXXIV, 3: 203-225; Part VIII, January, 1956, Proc. Helminth. 

 Soc. Washington 23, 1: 1-13; Part IX, July, 1956, Proc. Helminth. Soc. 

 Washington 23, 2: 153-162). In these works were described a number of 

 new species, 3 genera ( Neoheterocotyle Hargis, 1955, Dendromonocotyle 

 Hargis, 1955, Loimopapillosum Hargis, 1955) and one new subfamily of 

 Monocotylidae (sensu Price, 1938)--Dendromonocotylinae Hargis, 1955. 



In tKo first place the fact that Hargis re-examined Hemitagia galapagensis 

 (Meserve, 1938) and discovered that without doubt they do not have 4 clamps 

 but 8 (see above) and that this species is extremely close to Tagia equadori 

 (Meserve, 1938) deserves attention; thus, it is possible that the genus 

 Hemi tagia has no right to independent existence. In addition to that, Hargis 

 describes two new species of Tagia, transfers into this genus Kuhnia 

 otoli this Yamaguti, 1953 and redescribes both species known earlier. From 

 his v/ork it is apparent that the genus Tagia undoubtedly should be ascribed 

 to Acanthocotylidae in our understanding. However, apparently the genus 

 T agia is not homogenous and later it may have to be divided at least into two. 

 Attention is drawn by the clamps of T. bairdiella Hargis, 1956 which are 

 completely identical with the ones of Pyragraphorus (Microcotylidae). This 

 is another case of parallel development of similar structures (see page 468 ). 

 Important are the materials of Hargis about Monocotylidae (s. lat. ). The 

 subfamily Dendromonocotylinae described by him clearly enters into the 



536 



