DE. T. S. COBBOLD ON THE PAEASITES OF ELEPHANTS. 255 



indeed, that our efforts have not yet properly commenced. If this be the case, any thing like an exhaustive 

 knowledge of the development of the Elephants' helminthiases is a matter likely to be realized only in the 

 far future. There is not much done to encourage research in this special direction. Those who have 

 charge of Elephants have usually so little knowledge of zoology that their observations are either 

 common-place or altogether unworthy of credence. Even thoroughgoing naturalists shirk the subject. 

 Certainly the 'Challenger'' and other expeditions expressly fitted out to collect all kinds of natural- 

 history objects might have have accomplished much more in this direction had they been minded to 

 follow the example of previous explorers. The most interesting private contribution of parasites in my 

 possession I owe to the liberality of Mr. Darwin, he having obtained some Entozoa about forty years 

 ago during his travels in Patagonia. But I must conclude. If the publication of this imperfect memoir 

 should do no more than gain for the helminths greater consideration at the hands of naturalists, I shall 

 feel that my efforts in a really useful though unpopular cause have not been altogether fruitless. 



APPENDIX. 



Since the reading of this memoir took place, Mr. R. McLachlan, P.Pt.S., has referred 

 me to a paper written hy Dr. F. Brauer in the lGth vol. of the Transactions of the 

 Zoologico-Botanical Society of Vienna. It is entitled " Pharyngobolus qfricanus, ein 

 Oestride aus dem Rachen des afrikanischen Elephanten." Mr. McLachlan also sub- 

 sequently received a letter from Dr. Brauer, in which the latter savant refers to the 

 abstract of my paper already given in the Linnean Society's Proceedings. Not 

 unnaturally Dr. Brauer appears surprised that the parasite described by him has been 

 omitted from my list ; and he thinks it probable that his Pharyngobolus is either similar 

 to or identical with my GastrophUus elephantis. Dr. Brauer's inference is not correct. 

 The two bots found by BZerr E. J. C. Marno in the oesophagus of the African elephant 

 that died at Vienna are quite distinct. Their characters, as given by Brauer with extreme 

 minuteness of detail, neither correspond with those of the bots found by Sir John Kirk in 

 the stomach of the elephant shot by him in Africa, nor do they resemble the characters 

 presented by the bots which were procured from the stomach of one of the Indian 

 elephants which died in this country. The specific differences refer to size, shape, 

 armature, and habitat. In Pharyiigobolas the larva is, we are told, scarcely more than 

 twice as long as it is broad, and the two anterior rings are only a trifle narrower than 

 the third ring. The number and disposition of the spines are also especially note- 

 worthy. In Brauer's larva each armed segment displays two wddely separated circles 

 of spines, the circle occupying the centre of each somite consisting of large spines with 

 then* points directed downwards. In our larvae the armed somites at the middle of the 

 body support several circles of spines, which are closely set together ; moreover, whilst 

 the uppermost circle is composed of spines that are paramount in size, the second circle 

 carries rather large spines, the third, fourth, and fifth rows becoming smaller and smaller. 

 Besides these, it will be seen, on comparison, that there are other more or less well- 

 marked differences; and therefore I do not hesitate to say that the throat- and stoma ch- 

 bots of Elephants represent two totally distinct species of dipterous insects. — T. S. C. 



SECOND SERIES. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. II. 35 



