435] PSEUDOPHYLLIDEA FROM FISHES— COOPER 147 



the host, Tarpon atlanticus, is listed. Since B. manuhriformis was described 

 before D. laciniatum, the latter must now be considered as a species delenda. 



BOTHRIOCPHALUS HISTIOPHORUS Shipley 



The writer would also hke to call attention in this place to the fact that 

 Shipley's (1901) Bothriocephalus histiophorus agrees in all essentials with B. 

 manuhriformis, which is almost to be expected since both are found in the same 

 host genus. 



The description and figure of the scolex is that of the latter species, altho 

 the true nature of the bothria was not ascertained by Shipley on account of 

 their almost closed condition, which was also seen in many specimens of B. 

 manuhriformis by the writer. Consequently it was described, erroneously, 

 as "... provided with longitudinal slit-like depressions which hardly attain 

 the dignity of suckers situated in the dorsal and ventral plane. " The external 

 features of the strobila are the same in both species, altho Shipley was describ- 

 ing a comparatively young specimen, as shown in his measurements of the 

 scolex and in his figures showing the size of the uterus-sac. The description 

 and figures of the genitalia agree in almost all details. It is quite apparent, 

 however, that his Fig. V, diagrammatic it is true, is entirely misleading as to 

 the proximal connections of the reproductive ducts, one of which, the ootype, 

 he confused with the isthmus of the ovary. The ova in the latter were found 

 by the writer to be IS/x in diameter in B. manuhriformis as in B. histiophorus. 

 His description of these central connections of the genital ducts is certainly 

 not that of the genus Bothriocephalus; for in dealing with the isthmus of the 

 ovary, which he called the ootype, he said that ''Into this region opens the 

 small shell-gland, and the ducts of the yolk glands. The shell-gland lies 

 posteriorly to the ovary between the right and left halves of that organ and 

 with the ducts of the yolk glands it opens into the ootype posteriorly. " The 

 measurements of the eggs and the description of the uterus agree with those 

 of Linton's species, excepting that the opening of the uterus-sac "... does 

 not seem to be provided with anything of the nature of a sphincter muscle. . . " 

 Altho the material at hand did not permit of the sectioning of such young 

 stages in the development of the uterus-sac, it would seem from the somewhat 

 varying nature of its funnel-shaped ventral end, described above for B. manu- 

 hriformis, that in more anterior proglottides it might be in such a condition 

 as to be easily overlooked. The nature and arrangement of the vitelUne glands, 

 the vagina and its bulb or sphincter, the testes in number and position, and 

 finally the cirrus-sac, all considered in connection with his Figs. I-IV, force 

 the writer to the conclusion that, so far as can be determined in the absence 

 of material for study, Shipley's B. histiophorus n. sp. is identical with B. manu- 

 hriformis (Linton). 



Concerning the probable disposal of ripe eggs in B. histiophorus, Shipley 

 made a statement with which the writer can agree, since it seems to be the 

 natural conclusion to arrive at after a study of the varying contents of the 

 uterus-sac along the strobila, namely, "From what I have seen I think it prob- 



