40 PROCEEDINOS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. 50. 



Genus ASCARIS Linnaeus, 17S8. 



Synonyms. — Stomachida Pereboom, 1780; Fusaria Zeder, 1800; 

 Lombricoides Merat, 1821. 



Generic diagnosis. — Ascarinae (p. 39) : Mouth with three well- 

 developed lips. Male with two equal spicules, and with numerous 

 papillae on the ventral surface of the body in front of and beliind 

 the anus. Vulva near middle of body or anterior of this point. Shell 

 of egg thick, with numerous mamillate projections on its outer 

 albuminous layer. 



Type-species. — Asca7is lumbricoides Linnaeus, 1758. 



ANALYTICAL KEY TO SPECIES OF ASCAEIS. 



1. No description Ascaris species, p. 40. 



Described species . 2. 



2. Intermediate lips absent Ascaris castoris, p. 40. 



Intermediate lips present (?) 3. 



3. Female 9 cm. long ; male unknown Ascaris laevis, p. 41. 



Female 11 cm. long ; male described Ascaris pigmentata, p. 41. 



ASCARIS species Parona, 1909. 



Specific diagnosis. — Ascaris (p. 40). No description. 



Host. — Mi(s mmutoides {Leggada Tninutoides) . 



Location. — Stomach. 



Locality. — Fort Portal, Africa. 



Parona mentions finding one female specimen, which he calls 

 Ascaris species. It seems likely to the writer that this does not 

 belong in the genus Ascaris or even in the Ascaroidea, but rather in 

 the superfamily Filarioidea and possibly in the genus Protospii^ura, 

 of which I have a large species, superficially resembling an ascarid, 

 from the stomach of a rodent. See comment on Ascaris pigmentata. 

 However, in the absence of adequate data and in view of the fact that 

 it is not a named species, there is nothing to gain by changing the 

 name used by Parona. 



ASCARIS CASTORIS Rudolphi, 1809. 



Speci-jlc diagnosis. — Ascaris (p. 40) : Long cylindrical worms, 10.8 

 to 21.7 cm. long. 



Male not described. 



Female not described. 



Host. — Castor -fiber. 



Location. — Intestine. 



Locality. — Not stated. 



Perrault, Charras, and Dodart, in their memoir on mammals, men- 

 tion these worms, and state that they are comparable to earthworms. 

 Rudolphi regarded them as ascarids. Such a supposition is quite 



