232 C. CLIFFORD DOBELL. 
In 1885 Seligo again described a 6-flagellate parasite from 
various frogs, etc., employing the name Hexamitus intesti- 
nalis Duj. for it. 
Grassi, 1888, maintained his former genus Dicercomonas, 
but gave a better definition. He, however, recognised only 
“quattro flagellianteriori.”” He gave assynonyms Hexamita 
Duj.and Giardia Kunstler. For the free-living forms he pro- 
posed to replace the name Hexamita Duj. by the new name 
Dujardinia Grassi, which, if adopted, would thus abolish 
the name Hexamita entirely. 
Klebs, 1892, retained Biitschli’s nomenclature (Hexamitus 
intestinalis, Duj.), though recognising for the first time that 
this flagellate really possessed ‘‘stets sechs vordere und zwei 
hintere Geisseln, so dass die Gattung eigentlich Octomitus 
heissen miisste.” And he adds, “ Doch erscheint es passender, 
den alten eingenbiirgerten Namen zu bewahren.”’ 
Senn, in ‘ Engler and Prantl,’ 1900, also retains the name 
Hexamitus intestinalis Duj., and gives as synonyms for 
Hexamitus, Heteromita pusilla Perty, Amphimonas 
Diesing, and Dicercomonas Grassi—evidently copied from 
Biitschli. Four pairs of flagella are described. 
Doflein, 1901, again attributes but six flagella to this 
animal, and retains Biitschli’s name. 
Stiles, 1902, made an attempt to arrive at a definite under- 
standing regarding the nomenclature of this and other 
flagellates, but his work was entirely of a literary nature, and 
not based upon any further investigation of the organisms 
themselves. 
Moroff, in 19035, was responsible for yet another change in 
the name of this parasite. He observed a similar organism 
in a fish, but stated (though his figures and description do 
not bear this out) that it was the same as that found in 
Amphibia, and there known as Hexamitus intestinalis 
Duj. He proposed to change the name, however, to Uro- 
phagus intestinalis (Duj.) Moroff,! because of the presence 
| Wrongly giving Hexamitus intestinalis Dujardin, 1841, as 
synonym. 
