6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 78 



Fenndle 17 to 19 mm. long by a maximum width of 230/1. to 240)u,. 

 The esophagus is about 1.2 mm. long. The anus lies about ISO/^t from 

 the posterior extremity of the body, which narrows rapidly behind 

 the anus to a digitiform tail. The vulva is represented by a small 

 transverse slit, about 3.8 mm. from the posterior end. Of the two 

 branches of the ovejector, one runs forward, the other backward. The 

 eggs in the uterus are oval, 75ju, to 81/a long by 45/^ to 48jli wide, and 

 thick shelled, and in the case of the most developed are in the ad- 

 vanced morula stage. 



Hosts. — Branta canadensis canadensis and Chen caerulescens. 



Location. — Under the cuticular layer of the gizzard, especially in 

 the region of the musculi intermedin 



Life history. — Unknown. 



DistHhution. — North America (United States, collected at Wash- 

 ington, D. C, from a host from Back Bay, Va. {Branta canadensis), 

 and from the National Zoological Park, Washington, D. C. {Chen 

 caerulescens) ) . 



Type specimens. — United States National Museum (Bureau of 

 Animal Industry Helminthological collection) No. 28959. 



Comparison of E. cratni unth other species of Epomidiostormmi. — 

 This species resembles Epoimdiostomwni orispinum (Molin, 1861) 

 Seurat, 1918, and E. skrjahini Petrow, 1926, in many respects, espe- 

 cially the general size and shape. It differs, however, from E. oris- 

 pinum, as described by Seurat, in the following respects : 



1. The presence of four hooklike formations guarding the mouth 

 opening. 



2. The presence of a pair of spinelike, glistening supports at each 

 lateral papilla or amphid. 



3. The division of the distal end of the dorsal ray into four small 

 branches. Molin describes, in accordance with his drawing No. 9, 

 (plate 29), the dorsal ray of E. oHspinum as bifurcated (p. 522 . . . 

 radio medio apice bifurcato . . .), while Seurat gives no description 

 of the ray. 



4. The smaller size of the eggs. 



It differs from E. shrjahini as follows : 



1. The presence of the spinelike, glistening supports at each lateral 

 papilla or amphid which differ in position, origin, and shape from 

 similar formations figured and described as " warts " by Petrow in 

 E. skrjahini. 



2. The division of the distal end of the dorsal ray in four small 

 branches instead of two as in E. skrjahini. 



3. The distal ends of the externo-dorsal rays are blunt, while in 

 E. skrjahini they form a small, posteriorly bent hook. 



