TRICHOMONAD FLAGELLATES. 345 



He figures but a single anterior flagellum and a rather long posterior 

 one projecting from the body. This is somewhat Cercomo7ias-[ike 

 and lacks wholly the clear presentation of any Eutrichomastix char- 

 acters, though it is quite possible that he ma^' have been dealing with 

 this genus but failed to distinguish its organelles. 



Later Blochmann (1883) included in a paper dealing with parasitic 

 and marine flagellates a description of a new form ascribing it to 

 Biitschli who discovered it in the cloaca of Lacerta agilis. He gave it 

 the name Trichoviastix lacertae Biitschli apparently unaware that 

 Vollenhoeven (1878) had previously proposed this same generic name 

 for a hymenopteron. 



This preoccupation, which no subsequent writer, except Stiles 

 (1902) seems to have noted, necessitates a new generic name for the 

 trichomonad. We have therefore proposed Eutrichomastix as pre- 

 serving, at least for protozoologists, a clue to the relationships of the 

 flagellate, and designate Eutrichomastix lacertae (Biitschli) as the type 

 of the genus. 



The question of the correct specific name for the organism is less 

 readily determined since we know so little of the morphological changes 

 incident to the life-cycle and to change from one host species to an- 

 other. It seems best, as Dobell (1907) has done, to leave unutilized 

 Hammerschmidt's name coluhrorum, since it is indeterminable. If 

 both Biitschli's (see Blochmann, 1883) lacertae and Dobell's (1907) 

 serpentis are permitted to stand they should rest upon morphological 

 distinctions rather than host habitats. Such distinctions are appar- 

 ently lacking between the figures of Blochmann and of Prowazek, 

 and those of Dobell. The range of variation in size and proportions 

 only partially represented in our figures (PI. 7, Figs. 79, 81) from a 

 single host, is such that we are loath to attribute specific values to 

 slight differences in proportions. 



Moreover, individuals upon which we have worked from hosts as 

 widely separated in classification as Python reticulatus (Boidae) and 

 Crotalus oregonus (Crotalidae) are not morphologically distinguish- 

 able. Nor does geographical separation seem to differentiate them 

 since our material is recognizably similar to that of Biitschli, Prowazek, 

 and Dobell from Europe, and forms in Python from Borneo examined 

 shortly after arrival in San Francisco are not different from those in 

 Crotalus from California. 



The possibility that forms in snakes may be different from those in 

 lizards, is, however, an open one, and for the present we tentatively 

 refer the species upon which we have worked to Eutrichomastix ser- 



