391] ANOPLOCEPHALIDJE—DOUTHITT 41 



sentative of the genus Schizotaenia. Briefly summarized, the following 

 points brought out by Deiner support this conclusion. 



1. The testes are mainly on the pore side; this agrees with some 

 Schizotaeniae and disagrees with all known Anoplocephalae. 



2. The cirrus is spiny. 



3. The vagina and vaginal pore are anterior to the cirrus pouch. 



4. The structure of the vagina is identical with that of 8. anoplo- 

 cephaloides. 



5. The oviduct connects with the ovary directly in front of the 

 vitelline gland. 



6. The uterus, while relatively simple, shows clearly a resemblance 

 to Schizotaenia. 



These features are all characteristic of the representatives of the 

 genus Schizotaenia. Some of them are found nowhere else; none of 

 them are found in any species known to belong to the genus Anoplo- 

 cephala. In one character only does this cestode resemble Anoplo- 

 cephala: the genital pores are all dextral. This character however can 

 not be considered to outweigh the other anatomical resemblances and 

 the cestode is therefore placed in the genus Schizotaenia. 



MacCallum and MacCallum (1912) have published a careful ac- 

 count of the anatomy of Taenia gigantea Peters 1856, usually referred 

 to the genus Anoplocephala. This cestode also shows marked affinities 

 for Schizotaenia and while the case is not so strong as in the other, 

 the evidence is sufficient to indicate the position of the cestode. The 

 evidence that Taenia gigantea Peters is a Schizotaenia follows. 



1. The testes are mostly on the pore side. 



2. The cirrus is spiny. 



3. The vagina was not observed. Since the investigators expected 

 to find it posterior to the cirrus pouch, an inconspicuous and transitory 

 vagina, such as is found in 8. americana and 8. variabilis, anterior to 

 the pouch might easily have been overlooked. 



4. The vitelline gland is lobulated. 



Taenia gigantea Peters is therefore here transferred to the genus 

 Schizotaenia. Its specific distinctness from 8. magna, long disputed, 

 seems assured. 



With six of the species of Shizotaenia well known it is now possible 

 to judge the value of the various anatomical features much more satis- 

 factorily than could von Janicki, who had before him but one that was 

 satisfactorily described. It becomes evident that several of the charac- 

 teristics he proposed must be restated and several others show them- 

 selves to be of generic rank. In making such generalizations the poorly 



