106 PROCEEDINGS OP THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. 50. 



is found in the stomach is further evidence to the same ejffect. Von 

 Drasche thinks the worm may be placed near Nematoxys Schneider, 

 186G (which is Cosmocerca Diesing, 18G1, renamed). The esophagus, 

 musculature, and lateral papillae suggest Oxysoma, Schneider, 186G, 

 but as Oxysoma is without standing as a nematode genus, being pre- 

 occupied by Oxysoma Gervais, 1849 (arachnoid), and as I have no 

 similar material sufficiently close to this species to properly evaluate 

 it, I have left the name unchanged and the species unplaced. 



Superfamily STRONGYLOIDEA Weinland, 1858. 



/Synonyms. — Strongylidea Carus, 1803, in Travassos, 19145/ 

 Stringyloidae Travassos, 1914&/ Strongyloidea Weiland, 1858, of 

 Travassos, 1914Z*. 



Sui)erfamily diagnosis. — Nematoda (p. 4) : Meromyarian or poly- 

 myarian. Males with well-developed caudal bursa supported by rays ; 

 in forms near the outer limit of the superfamily the bursa is occa- 

 sionally very small and the rays atypical, or the bursa may be lacking 

 altogether, the species in question being only referable to this super- 

 family on the ground that transitional but recognizably strongyle 

 forms, found at times in the same locations and with the same habits, 

 relate them to it. Esophagus without posterior bulb. Mouth naked 

 or with a buccal capsule and six papillae, distinct or indistinct. 

 Male usually with two spicules and female usually with two ovaries. 

 Oviparous or viviparous. 



Ty 2)8- family. — Strongylidae Cobbold, 18G4. 



ANALYTICAL ICEY TO FAMILIES OF STRONGYLOIDEA. 



1. Polymyariiui ; usuuUy in respiratory or circulutory tract. 



Metastrongylidae, p. 162. 

 Meroiiiyiiriaii ; usually found in the digestive tract 2. 



2. Buccal cap.sule present Strongylidae, p. 107. 



Buccal capsule not present Trichostrongylidae, p. 123. 



The use of the musculature as a basis for the diagnosis of families, 

 and especially for use in keys, is perhaps unfortunate, for the reason 

 that it is a point not readily applied. At the same time the divi- 

 sion of the strongyles along this line, following Railliet and Henry 

 (1910), seems to be more fundamental and well considered than the 

 division with reference to the presence or absence of a buccal cap- 

 sule, following Leiper (1908). The arrangement of Kailliet and 

 Henry groups the trichostrongyles with the Strongylidae; that of 

 Leiper groups them with the Metastrongylidae. While Leiper's 

 arrangement is a better working arrangement, especially in compil- 

 ing keys, it is not so fortunate in correlating other distinctive fea- 

 tures as is that of Railliet and Henry. For one thing, the presence 



