. 
THE MYXOSPORIDIA, OR PSOROSPERMS OF FISHES. 225 
Spore.—Resembling Chloromyxum dujardini; 11 yp (0-0051/”) long 
and 7 u (0-:0034/”) broad. 
Habitat.—On Leuciscus (Squalius) grislagine L. (= Cyprinus leuciscus). 
Tumors less common than on Leuciscus rutilus. 
It seems strange that Miiller should approximate this form to the 
“sharp corpuscles of C. rutilus,”! as Leuckart’s figure resembles much 
more closely the elliptic form figured by Miiller (Miiller’s figs. f, g; 
pl. 28, figs. 5f, 9). 
51. Myxobolus sp. incert. Pl. 22, figs. 5, 6; pls. 23-25. 
Barbel | 
‘psorosperms,”} miulleri.* | Date. Authority; reference. 
etc., of— | 
3S 00S AA RES aoSattmoade 1885 | Mégnin, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, X, pp. 351-2 (fig.); 
Compt. Rend. hebdom. Soc. Biol. Paris, II, pp. 
446-7. 
Se he PE Rhee tt SoS 1886 | Railliet, Bull. et Mém. Soc. Centrale Méd. Veter. 
Paris, IV, pp. 134-7. 
eB TORE BCeSEpe Myxobelust| 1889 | Ludwig, Jahresber. rhein. Fisch.-Ver. Bonn, 1888, 
(pars). pp. 27-36. ° 
3S tag hewowee ses cgse | 1890 | Railliet, Bull. Soc. Central. d’Aquicult. Paris, IT, 
pp. 117-20. 
ME |Recaccesesce 4s 1890 | Pfeiffer, Virchow’s Archiv. f. patho]. Anat. u.Physiol., 
CXXII, pp. 552, 557-8, pl. 12, figs. A2, C1-8. 
etre il crise al ccc 1890 | Die Protozoen als Krankheitserreger, 1 ed., pp. 28-9, 
55, 67, fig. 10, plate, figs. IV, V. 
Ker ah \\oeeeacec sos < 1891 | Pfeiffer, Die Protozoen als Krankheitserreger, 2 ed., 
pp. 100, 105-10, 180, figs. 48b, 45, 57. 
x | Ssocecsecease 1892 | Thélohan, Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris, IV, pp. 168, 178. 
x oocotetssenced 1892 | Henneguy and Thélohan, Annal. de Microgr.,IV, p. 
619. 
ca nage Breet ee ane 1893 | Thélohan, Compt. Rend. hebdom. Soc. Biol. Paris, 
V, pp. 267-70. 
SrA Beegect | AED ps Stee 1893 Pfeifler, Centralbl. f. Bakt. u. Parasitenkde, XTV, pp. 
118-130, plate, figs. 13-15, 16 (pars). 
We eas Eo eS ee 1893 Sticker, Archiy f. Animal. Nahrungsmittelkde Wien, 
| VIII, p. 124. 
IMtyXODOIUS. p= eel niniae == 1 1893 | Railliet, Traité de Zool. Méd. et Agric., pp. 158-159. 
* Non Biitschli. 
+ Ludwig’s figures seem as though they might be generalized composites based upon several of 
Biitschli's. They may thus perhaps be not independent figures of the spore habitant in the skin of 
B. barbus, but have been considered to represent that form in view of its supposed identity with I. 
miilleri, 
Synonymy.—Both Mégnin and Ludwig, the former with doubt, the 
latter apparently without hesitation, regard this form as identical with 
M. miilleri. While admitting their superior advantages (of direct 
. observation of material) I still feel considerable doubt as to the iden- 
tity of these 2 forms, and have therefore provisionally classed them 
separately, as, while I do not consider that there is sufficient ground 
for a positive assertion of the distinctness of the two forms, there is 
certainly sufficient to justify a hesitation as to their fusion. 
Mégnin says the present species is probably the same as that described 
by Robin and Balbiani as infesting the tench and carp. Now as to this: 
(1) I am not aware that Robin ever observed such a form, and (2) the 
spore habitant on the tench (M. ellipsoides) is, as shown by Thélohan,? 
unquestionably distinct from that habitant on the carp (M. oviformis), 
1 “Bei C. leuciscus glichen sie ganz den spitzen Kérperchen des C, rutilus,” 
2 Annal. de Microgr., 1890, 11, p. 210, 
FO 15 
