230 C. CLIFFORD DOBELL. 
Burnett, 1851, mentions thé presence of “ Bodo (Khr.)” 
in the frog, and records a few observations on the organisms. 
But I am quite unable to decide which of the flagellates in 
the frog he really saw. 
Perty was the first, in 1852, to distinguish Trichomonas 
batrachorum from the other flagellates. But he also appears 
to have recognised a flagellate which he calls Cercomonas 
ranarum (Bodo sp. of Ehrbg.). Probably this was the 
8-flagellate once more, under another name. 
Leidy, 1856, recognised both Ehrenberg’s forms of Bodo, 
retaining the latter’s name, B. intestinalis, for the smaller 
form. 
The next change of name was brought about by Diesing, 
1865. He describes Hexamita intestinalis Duj. as 
Amphimonas intestinalis. This name cannot be retained, 
The genus Amphimonas was made by Dujardin in 1841, 
and included three free-living species, each possessing two 
or three flagella. There is no justification for Diesing 
changing Dujardin’s own genera in this way. 
Stein’s great work on flagellates appeared in 1878, and in 
it he describes, with tolerably accurate figures, a parasite 
said to be common in frogs, under the name Hexamita 
intestinalis Dujard. Although Stein only figures six 
flagella, I think there can be no doubt that he really saw the 
8-flagellate organism. The rest of his description is fairly 
good. 
Biitschli, in the same year (1878), resumed the investigation 
of the free-living forms. He states that there are really 
eight flagella in these organisms and unites Dujardin’s two 
species, Hexamita nodulosa and H. inflata, into one 
species, Hexamitus inflatus, thus modifying the original 
name. It must remain doubtful whether Butschli’s 8-flagel- 
late organisms were really the same as Dujardin’s 6-flagellate 
animals. 
Further complications were brought about by Grassi in 
1879. He proposed the generic name Dicercomonas for 
two different parasitic flagellates. The genus was dis- 
