248 DE. T. S. COBBOLD ON THE PAEASITES OF ELEPHANTS. 



it is evident that the ' bots ' were little, if at all, concerned in bringing about the 

 fatal issue. 



These bots are perfectly distinct from those obtained from the stomachs of other large 

 animals. Not many years back Mr. Spooner Hart, V.S., of Calcutta, sent me some fine 

 larva? taken from an Indian Rhinoceros. They are evidently identical with the 

 Gastrophilus rhinocerolis obtained by Prof. Owen from the stomachs of African Rhino- 

 ceroses (B. bicomis and R. simus), and cannot be confounded with the bots of the 

 Elephant. As regards size, the bots of Rhinoceros indicus quite equal the measurements 

 recorded by Brauer as characterizing the bots of the African Rhinoceroses. 



Parasitic Ova. — In this place it is fitting to notice the curious kind of parasitism 

 believed either to result from or to have some immediate connexion with the deposition 

 of eggs of an insect. 



At a meeting of the Zoological Society held on the 21st of February 1871, Mr. Sclater 



showed some tusks of a female Indian Elephant, their surfaces being " corroded or 



eaten away " near the gums. Egg-like bodies, probably those of a dipterous insect, 



were found attached below the affected spot. According to Mr. Roden, who shot the 



Elephant, the eggs were on the tusks at the time he killed the animal ; but " there 



were no maggots in the grooves at the end of the tusks." To whatever circumstances the 



injuries were due, it is clear that the corrosions were not accidental; for, as Mr. Sclater 



pointed out, a well-known Indian sportsman had already called attention to the matter 



in the columns of 'The Field.' Under a pseudonym (" Smoothbore") the sportsman 



solicits information from zoologists, and remarks in particular on the circumstance that 



the corrosions or injuries " have never been observed in the tusks of the male." In 



confirmation, Professor Flower also called attention to the fact that the Hunterian 



Museum contains a pair of tusks similarly marked. Thus, to whatever parasite the 



appearances in question are due, it is clear that their occurrence is sufficiently common, 



and that there ought to be no difficulty in procuring materials for further investigation. 



Dr. Mas Schmidt, the Director of the Zoological Garden at Frankfort, has also referred 



to the ova of insects on the tusks of Elephants. His well-known memoir is exhaustive 



and elaborate as regards the general diseases of pachyderms ; but little is said about 



their parasites. Not one of the entozoa of Elephants described by Baird and myself 



appears to have come under Dr. Schmidt's notice. 



Through the help offered by Professor Flower, I have had an opportunity of examining 

 the tusks preserved at the Royal College of Surgeons. In the Catalogue it is stated 

 that one was obtained from a young Ceylonese female Elephant. This tusk was pre- 

 sented to the College by Mr. G. H. K. Thwaites. The other tusk, presented by Mr. 

 Sclater, was removed from a wild and full-grown female Elephant killed at Malabar. 

 Both teeth display deep erosions at the surface, near the edge of the gum ; and in the 

 smaller specimen from the young Elephant the erosion is about a quarter of an inch 

 in depth. The eggs are deposited on the tusks side by side in single file, but not in 

 perfectly straight lines. They form gracefully curved groups, each group presenting a 



