462 \V. N. F. WOODLAND 



channels and not o})ening by a posterior vesicle, and with 

 typical hexacanth larvae in some S])ecies but in others 

 a ten-hooked larva similar to that of Amphilinidae. 

 Parasitic in the intestine of Holocephali. 



The Amphilinidae^ may be re-defined as 



Cestodaria with a flattened more or less elongated body, 

 possessing calcareous corpuscles but devoid of cuticular 

 spines and hooks, with a large anterior boring apparatus 

 (proboscis, boring muscle and anchor cells) but devoid of 

 suckers and bothria, with the cirrus and vaginal apertures 

 either in close apposition or only separated by a short 

 distance, both situated posteriorly on or near the edge of the 

 hind end of the body, with the testes extending over, with 

 the uterus, the greater length of the body, usually as two 

 marginal rows lying external to the coils of the uterus but 

 sometimes more scattered, with the vagina lying posterior to 

 the ovary and the uterus anterior, with the uterine opening 

 at the extreme anterior end, with a very long uterus, 

 consisting of three limbs disposed like the letter N when 

 viewed ventrally, with two main lateral longitudinal 

 excretory channels opening medianly at the posterior 

 extremity, and with a larval form possessing ten booklets. 

 Parasitic in the body-cavity of Acipenseridae, 

 Osteoglossidae (Arapaima), Haemulidae (Dia- 

 gramma), and Siluridae (Macrones). 



Comparing these three families, it appears to me self-evident 

 that the Caryophyllaeidae and Gyrocotylidae are 

 much more closely allied to each other than is either of these 

 families to the Amphilinidae. In both of the former 

 families (a) the three sexual apertures are all grouped together, 

 and at least two of them (the uterine and vaginal) are, in both 

 families, situated on the (ventral '?) surface in or near the median 



^ See the writer's paper on Am phi Una paragonopora recently 

 published in this journal (28). I may remark in this place that Poche's 

 paper " Zur Kenntnis der Amphilinidea " ( ' Zoologischer Anzeiger ', 

 Bd. liv, 1922, p. 276) appeared too late for me to refer to it in my own 

 paper, and that I am wholly unable to concur with the author's grotesque 

 proposal to found separate families and sub-families for known species 

 of Amphilina. The best policy to adopt with suggestions of this kind is to 

 ignore them. 



