912 PROTOZOA AND OTHER ANIMALS 



to be extensively infected, especially in the anterior part of the intestine; 

 and they believed the flagellate to be severely pathogenic and to constitute 

 a serious menace to the success of trout culture. The flagellates have been 

 found also in European trout (Moroff, 1903; Schmidt, 1920) and in 

 the fan-tailed darter {Etheostoma flabellare) (Davis, 1926). Davis and 

 Moore did not prove that the flagellates were not secondary in diseased 

 fish, as Schmidt believed. 



Lavier (1936b) examined 33 species of marine fish and found six 

 species of Hexamita, five of them new, in seven of these. He remarked 

 that the morphology of Hexamita is much varied if one does not think 

 in general terms, and that an attentive study enables one to recognize 

 clear and constant morphological differences. 



Hexamita is commonly found in the intestine of amphibia, and has 

 been reported from the intestine of turtles and tortoises, as well as from 

 the bladder of Emys orbicularis (Grasse, 1924) and from the stomach, 

 oesophagus, and small intestine of the snake Natrix tigrina (Matubayasi, 

 1937). It occasionally invades the blood of amphibia (Lavier and Gal- 

 liard, 1925; and others) and tortoises (Plimmer, 1912) through a dam- 

 aged intestinal wall. 



Among birds, Hexamita occurs in pigeons (Noller and Buttgereit, 

 1923), ducks {Anas boschas, Kotlan, 1923), turkeys (Hinshaw, Mc- 

 Neil, and Kofoid, 1938), and various wild birds in Brazil (Cunha and 

 Muniz, 1922, 1927). 



Of mammals, rodents especially have been found infected with 

 Hexafuita. In addition to rats, mice, ground-squirrels, and woodchucks 

 (Crouch, 1934), the South American hystrichoid rodent Myopotamus 

 coipus [^=:^Myocastor coy pus (Molina)] contains a species (Artigas and 

 Pacheco, 1932). 



Hexamita has also been reported in primates, including man (Cunha 

 and Muniz, 1929; Wenrich, 1933; Chatterji, Das, and Mitra, 1928; 

 PerekropoflP and Stepanoff, 1931, 1932). Dobell (1935), discussing all 

 these records except the third, believed that diplozoic forms of Entero- 

 monas, which "are very frequently found in feces, in intestinal contents, 

 and in cultures," were misidentified. As regards Wenrich's record, how- 

 ever, from Macacus rhesus, this is improbable when one considers his 

 extensive knowledge of the genus as well as the exactness of his de- 

 scription and figures. 



