DE. T. S. COBBOLD ON THE PAKASITES OF ELEPHANTS. 225 



Description of Species, and Comments. 



1. ASCAEIS LONCHOPTERA, Diesing. 



A.lonchoptera, "Diesing, Syst. Helm. Bd. ii. S. 176, Snpp. S. 560; idem, Denkschrift. d. math.-nat. CI. 



d. k. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Bd. xiii. S. 13 (with figures). 

 Ascarides, Jackson, Catalogue of the Anat. Mus. &c., Boston, 1817, p. 317. 

 Strongylus elephanti (sic), Rudolphi, Synopsis Entozoorum, Berlin, 1819, p. 36. 



Body of uniform thickness, but rather narrowed in front and behind, with an acutely 

 pointed conical tail. Head with three large almost spherical lips, the margins of the 

 neck having two lateral semilanceolate winged appendages. 



Male unknown. 



Length of the female 3 inches (or more). Breadth fully £ of a line. 



Sab. Biliary ducts and duodenum of Mephas indicus. 



The only published description of this worm is that given by Diesing. He states that 

 the parasite was discovered quite accidentally by Herr Mayor in the year 1822. Several 

 parasites (but it is not stated how many) were found in the gall-ducts of an Asiatic 

 Elephant. This animal had been held in captivity at Geneva, where it was destroyed on 

 account of madness (wegen Lobsucht). Not until the year 18-17 do we find any second 

 record of the occurrence of this entozoon. In this instance several specimens were 

 obtained from the biliary ducts and from the duodenum of an Indian Elephant which 

 died in captivity at Boston, TJ. S. A. It is not stated how many of the parasites existed ; 

 but Dr. J. B. S. Jackson, to whom both the find and its record are apparently due, states 

 that these Ascarides were associated with numerous flukes. As Dr. Fitz has recently 

 pointed out, the flukes themselves were at the time considered to be examples of the 

 common liver-fluke of ruminants (Disiomum hepaticum). 



It would be interesting to have further particulars respecting the American " find." 

 Of the Geneva specimens, only two, both females, were sent to Vienna ; and these were 

 originally entered in the Catalogue as Strongyles. As at present we possess no published 

 description of the male parasite, it may be that the Boston-Museum specimens would, if 

 carefully examined, supply us with the missing link. Even the few particulars that we 

 have respecting the characters of the female worm require verification. The specimens 

 noticed by the illustrious Rudolphi were the same as those described by Diesing ; and 

 supposing that Iludolphi actually examined the worms, it is difficult to understand why 

 he should have called them Strongyles, or rather, why he should have placed them 

 amongst his species dubice, and, as such, in the genus Strongylus. The conspicuously 

 three-lipped mouth ought to have afforded sufficient proof of its true generic position. 

 But for Diesing's figures, one might still have remained sceptical as to the ascarid 

 character of the Geneva specimens ; and certainly as regards the nature of the Boston 

 find I am still somewhat in doubt, all the more so since the specific characters of the 

 flukes found with the Ascarides were from the outset misunderstood. Perhaps Dr. Eitz, 

 who has cleared up certain points respecting the organization of the flukes, will set this 

 matter at rest. At all events, until our own naturalists in India bestir themselves and 



31* 



