473] PSEUDOPHYLLIDEA FROM PISHES— COOPER 185 



This, with "neque ovaria, neque foramina articulorum vidi ..." and the 

 further fact that he obtained his specimens from Gadus lota ( = Lota vulgaris), 

 leads the writer to believe that he was not dealing with the form present in 

 marine hosts but with a form which, if not identical with A . crassum ( = his 

 B. infundihuUformis and B. prohoscideus) , was very close to it. One must then 

 go back farther to Batsch (1786:208) where the species T. rugosa was named 

 on the basis of Goeze's (1782:410) description of "Der runzlichter Fischband- 

 wurm" from Gadus mustela { — Motella mustela), the marine five-breared 

 rockling of Europe, which the latter called T. tetragonoceps Pallas, with some 

 doubts, however, as discussed under the next species dealt with here. Batsch 

 gave the following diagnosis of T. rugosa: 



"Taenia (larvata) capite conico cum corpore subconfluente, papillis laterali- 

 ter adnatis usque ad apicem capitis, eisque binis: articulis brevissimis, dila- 

 tatis, corpore serrato." 



He used Goeze's figures 1 to 4 and pointed out that he (Goeze) recognized 

 differences between his specimens and Pallas' T. tetragonoceps, for "Er rechnet 

 beyde Wiirmer fur eine Art, and die Glieder nebst dem ganzen Korper haben 

 viel Gleichheit, auch die aussere Gestalt des Kopfs. Doch sind bey diesem 

 letztern die Saugblasen bey weiten nicht so deutb'ch gezeichnet, und stellen 

 vielmehr, wie sich Gotze ausdrxickt, zwey Backenbarte vor. Die Furche auf 

 dem Korper ist auch vorhanden, nur scheint der Korper mehr gestreckt, und 

 am Rande mehr zackig zu seyn." Consequently the correct name of the 

 species depends on whether Goeze's description, augmented by Batsch's con- 

 tributions, is considered to be applicable to the material at hand. The largest 

 of Goeze's specimens measured in warm water a yard and half in length by 

 scarcely one-half a line in breadth; but the latter is decidedly at variance with 

 his figures 1 and 2 which he said were dra\\Ti in "natiirlicher Grosse, " in which 

 case the width would be from 7 to 15 fines and the scolex about 17.5 fines in 

 length! For these large specimens — even tho only the first set of measure- 

 ments were taken into consideration — he described and figured nothing of 

 diagnostic value other than a scolex provided with two bothria pretty much of 

 the ordinary type, behind this a "distinctly jointed" and "almost cyfindrical" 

 neck and along both surfaces of the posterior closely crowded segments a 

 median longitudinal furrow, aU of which characters more nearly agree with 

 the prohoscideus type of A. crassum rather than with the A. rugosum described 

 here. And since the latter is clearly not T. tetragonoceps Pallas as described 

 by Batsch (1786:204), the only course that seems open is to refer the species 

 to van Benden's A hothrium gadi. However, in view of the fact that no material 

 from the European Hng {Lota vulgaris) was available for a comparative study, 

 the writer does not feel justified in taking this step, but here retains at least 

 tentatively the specific name Abothrium rugosum (Batsch 1786), nee A. 

 rugosum Goeze 1782. 



The material studied consisted of lots 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, and 302 

 from Melanogrammus aeglifinus (L.), the haddock, and 301 from Gadus cal- 

 larias, the cod in the writer's collection; and 17.53 in the collection of the 

 University of Illinois, also from the cod. 



