216 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PISH AND FISHERIES. 



lislies the conclusion that his reference to GoMo JJuriaiiJis was due 

 to an erroneous correhition between Lieberkiihu's text and Lieber- 

 kiihn's figures. Finally, Biitschli's fig. 18a appears to be the trausv^erse 

 view of 18&. 



Concerning the relation between this form and 71/. sp. 45, M. Thelo- 

 han (letter to author, 1893) says: 



It is impossible to say wliotlier this ijijiire sliould be approximated to my Myxoholus 

 of the bream. 



No description. 



Sahitat. — Branchioe of Abrctinis hrama L. (bream). 



45. Myxobolus sp. incert. 



Myxobolns of bream, Th^lohan, 1S92, Bull. Soc. pliilomat. Taris, iv, p. 178. 



Cyst and myxosporidium not mentioned. 

 Spore. — Length, 8 //; breadth, to 7 j.(. 

 Habitat. — Branchise of Ahramis brama (bream). 

 Bemarl's. — Differs from M. miiUcri only in the smaller size of the 

 spores. See also remarks on the preceding species. 



46. Myxobolus miilleri Biitscbli, 1882. Pis. 16, 1-7. 



(Myxosporidian spores of Squ alius cephalus, of Barhus fluviatilis, and of other 

 fresli-water Cyjiriuoids, Biitscbli, 1881, Ztschr. f. wiss. ZooL, xxxv, p. 

 630, footnote, pp. 630-8, 646-8, pi. 31, ligs. 1-24.) 



Myxoholus miilleri, Bronn's Thier-Reicb, i, pii. 59.5-7, pi. 38, figs. 6-10; \h. Lau- 

 kester, 1885, Encycl. Britan., 9 ed., xix, p. 855, fig. xvii, 40, 41; ib., 

 Leimis, 1886, Synopsis d. Thicrkde, ii, pp. 1137-8, figs. 1118-9; ih., Tlidlo- 

 han, 1892, Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris, iv, pp. 166, 167, 178; ih., Gurley, 

 1893, Bull. U. S. Fish. Com. for 1891, xi, p. 414; ib., Braun, 1893, Centralbl. 

 f. Bakt. n. Parasitenkde, xiv, p. 739; ib., Braun, 1894, Centralbl. f. Bakt. 

 u. Parasitenkde, xv, p. 87. 



Synonymy. — Blitschli (1881) says the Myxoftporidia investigated by 

 him came principally from the Cypriuoids, but that he could not give the 

 species of host exactly, as he investigated large numbers of excised 

 branchiae. In part, however, these latter were derived from Squalius 

 cephalus and from Barbus fluviatilis. He further states that he was 

 unable to recognize any specific distinctions between the spores of the 

 series he examined. Biitschli's type figures of 1882 are copies of his 

 figures of 1881. Parenthetically, also Lankester's and Lenuis's are 

 copies of these. Of those who have studied the pathogenic mtiscle- 

 form of Barbus barbus {= fluviatilis)., all admit its close similarity to, and 

 some assert its identity with, M. miilleri (see p. 225). Further, Pfeiffer 

 states that in the Khine basin, in which the epidemic produced by the 

 muscle-form is very extensive, the branchite are free from My.wspori- 

 dia, a nonassociation that would seem to favor the idea of specific dis- 

 tinctness. So far, then, no direct comparison has been made between 

 the spores inhabiting the branchife of B. barbus and those inhabiting 

 the muscles of the same fish. In the meantime it is probable that 

 Leuciscus (squalius) cephalus L. should be regarded as, so to speak, the 

 type host'of M. miilleru 



