new Tentaculate Cestode. 205 
the scolex only) of Fuhrmann’s example of Chapmania tapica 
is that of another genus altogether, viz., Schistumetra togata 
of Cholodkovsky *. 
There is also no doubt that the tentaculate Cestode 
described here has nothing to do with Schistometra togata, 
nor with my own ft Otiditenia eupodotidis, which Skriabin 
regards as not only congeneric, but as being of specific 
identity, with Schistometra togata t. 
For in Schistometra, according to Skriabin (Cholodkovsky 
examined examples without a scolex), the rostellum is armed 
and each sucker has two tentacles arising side by side from 
the upper end. There is also no doubt that the tentaculate 
worm found by myself in Numida mitrata has no relation to 
Schistometra in its general anatomy. ‘This is entirely upon 
the plan of that of Rhabdometra, and J have compared the 
worm detail for detail with my preparations of Rhabdometra 
cylindrica§. It is to be noted, however, that the example 
of the tentaculate Cestode which I have in my possession is 
not perfectly mature, in that it is not in the process of shed- 
ding proglottids. It possesses the terminal segment, longer 
and more oval in form than those which precede it, as is 
usual among those Tapeworms in which the terminal pro- 
glottid has been observed. At the very extremity of this 
* In a Russian work, being a Catalogue of Cestodes in the Cabinet of 
the Imperial Military-Medical Academy of Petrograd, 1912, p. 46. 
+ Proc. Zool. Soc. 1912, p. 194, and 2b. 1914, p. 879. 
{ As to this identification I make the following observations :—I believe 
that Dr. Skriabin is quite right in identifying the genera Schistometra 
and Otiditenia. As he uses Cholodkovsky’s name instead of mine, I 
presume that that name has thé priority of date of publication, though 
both descriptions appeared in 1912—mine in March of that year; the 
month of issue is not given in my copy (due to the author’s kindness) 
of Cholodkovsky’s catalogue. I am not, however, convinced that the 
species are identical. It is to be noted that Cholodkovsky (Annuaire 
Mus. Zool. Ac. Sci. St. Petersburg, xx. 1915, p. 164) convinced Skriabin 
that the species described by the latter in his paper referred to here was 
not identical with Schistometra togata, but identical with a species 
described in MS. by Doppelmayr as S. embiensis. It does not remain 
clear as to which of these two the scolex alleged to be of Chapmania 
tapica really belongs. But, apart from the possible lack of knowledge 
of the scolex of S. togata, the arrangement of the testes of the latter 
in many rows does not agree with my observations upon those of 
“ Otiditenia eupodotidis.” As to S. embiensis it seems to me to differ 
from my species by the much more slender scolex, that of my species 
being more massive. But the testes agree as being in one row. The 
brick-red colour of the posterior segments of my worm as well as its 
different host are minor points of difference from the two species of 
Schistometra described by the three Russian authors, 
§ P.Z.S8. 1914, p. 859. 
