612 



that the grueric position of this species is doubtlul. 

 (Si'o addendum, p. ()37.) 



I refrain from discussing this form further, except 

 to remark that practically nothing is definitely known 

 aboit the species. Grety's description is the only one 

 which can be given the diguity of a diagnosis, and yet 

 that was not based upon originals. The earlier de- 

 scriptions, which take no account of the internal ana- 

 tomy of the segments, are almost useless so far as 

 zoological descriptions are concerned. Were it not for 

 the fact that the original host (chickens) is known, I 

 have the most serious doubt whether it would ever be 

 possible to recognize this form; and whether even the 

 numerous specimens recorded from chickens as T. in- 

 fundibuliformis are to be considered as such is, in my 

 opinion, an open question. I have specimens of worms 

 from pigeons (Columba domestica) and from turkeys 

 (.Meleagris gallopavo mexicana), which I should like 

 lo determine as Dr. infundibuliformis, but it seems 

 to me that this specific name, like Taenia expansa of 

 older authors, is only a Latinized foirm of expressing 

 one's doubts or ignorance as to what species is in the 

 hands of a given worker, while as for the supposed 

 life history, with the fly as intermediate host, although 

 I am not willing to deny the correctness of the bypo- 

 thesis, I do insist that it is only an hypothesis, with 

 little back of it, and that it is now time to call a bait 

 on such speculative work and to distinguish between 

 what is shown experimentally to be fact, and what 

 nuglit possibly bo shown to be fact. (See also Taenia 

 niiri-o]innctata.'> 



