148 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 83 



arrangement of papillae, and length of spicules. From D. mauri- 

 tanicus (Gendre, 1927) it differs in body form and in the thickness 

 of the cuticle. (For description see Tornquist, 1931.) Linton 

 (1901) figured and briefly described a female cucuUanid from 

 Paralichthys dentatus, which is clearly a Dichelyne. In 1905 he 

 reported parasites that he considered similar from Sciaenops ocel- 

 Jafus, Paralichthys alhiguttus, Leiostomus xanthurus. and Lophov- 

 setta maculata^ and in 1907 from Haemulon carhonarium and Neo- 

 maenis griseus. In 1901 he described a male from Funclulus hetero- 

 clitus and figured the posterior end, which is provided with a sucker. 

 Barreto (1922) put all these records and figures together and called 

 the collection CucuIJanus lintoni. Tornquist (1931) called attention 

 to the improbability of a single species of cucullanid occurring in 

 such a wide range of hosts. As remarked above, Linton's form 

 from Paralichthys dentatus is clearly a Dichelyne^ but there is no 

 positive evidence tiiat tiie other forms are, since no mention is made 

 of tlie presence or absence of an intestinal diverticulum. 



The measurements given b}^ Linton for the form from Sciaenops 

 ocellatus correspond fairly well with those of the species here de- 

 scribed, and it is not unlikely that Linton actually had this species. 

 His Dichelyne from the flounder is, however, distinctly different in 

 shape of head and tail, position of vulva, and other details. His 

 form from Leiostomus xanthurus differs in having the vulva an- 

 terior to the middle of the body but agrees in this respect with the 

 form from Haemulon carhonarium. The figure of a female from 

 Neomaenis gnseus, on the other hand, shows the vulva well posterior, 

 and the shape of the body shows this form to be distinctly different 

 from the form from Paralichthys figured in 1901. 



It seems evident to me that Linton's various records do not apply 

 to a single species but probably to several. Barreto's " CucuUanus 

 lintoni ^\ therefore, must either be discarded as a nomen nudum or 

 limited to some one of Linton's forms. Barreto reproduces the fig- 

 ures of the forms from Hae7ni(lo7i and Neomaenis from Linton's 

 plates 2 and 3 (1907). Of these figures, Linton's figures 11 and 11a 

 of plate 2 (Barreto's pi. 36, figs. 1, 3) show characters that are of 

 taxonomic value and that would probably serve to identify the 

 species. If Barreto's name ^' Hntotii''^ is retained, therefore, it is 

 suggested that it be limited to the form from Neomaenis represented 

 in Linton's figures 11 and 11« and that forms from other hosts be 

 ascribed to tliat species only when a restudy of Linton's specimens, 

 or additional material, shows them to be cospecific. For Linton's 

 form from Paralichthys dentatus, represented on his plate 7, figures 

 57-61 (1901) and referred to by him as " Ascaris (?) sp." on p. 481, 

 the name Dichelyne cylindncus is suggested. 



