new Ttnlaculate Cestode. 205 



tlie scolex only) of Fuiirinann's example of Chnpmania tapica 

 is that of another j^enus altogether, viz., Scliistometra toyata 

 of Cholodkovsky *. 



There is also no doubt that the teiitaculate Cestode 

 described here has nothing to do witii Schistouietra to(jata, 

 nor with niy own f Otidilania eiipodotid'm, whicii Skriabin 

 regards as not only congeneric, but as being of specific 

 identity, with Schistoinetra tixjata X. 



For in /ScAis/ome/^'a, according to Skriabin (Cholodkovsky 

 examined examples without a scolex), the rostelluin 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 

 Schistumetra in its general anatomy. This is entirely upon 

 the plan of that of Rhabdometra, and 1 have compared the 

 worm detail for detail witli my preparations of Rhabdometra 

 cylindrical. 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 whicli the terminal pro- 

 glottid has been observed. At the very extremity of this 



* In a Russian work, beintr a Catalogue of Cestodes in the Cabinet of 

 tlie Imperial Military-Medical Academy of Petrograd, 1912, p. 46. 



t Troc. Zool. Soc. 1912, p. 194, and ib. 1914, p. 879. 



X As to this identification I make the following observations : — T believe 

 tliat Dr. Skriabin ia quite right in ideutifving the genera Schistometra 

 and Otiditcenia. As he uses Cholodkovsky's name instead of mine, I 

 presume that that name has the 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 (Annnaire 

 Mas. Zool. Ac. Sci. St. Petersburg, xx. 1915, p. 164) convinced Slu-iabiu 

 that tlie species described by the latter in his paper referred to here was 

 not identiciil with Sc/n'sfotiieira tof/ata, but identical with a species 

 described in MS. by Doppehnayr as S. embieiisig. It does not remain 

 clear as to which of these two the scolex alleged to be of C/mpmania 

 tapica really belongs. But, apart from the possible lack of knowledge 

 of the scolex of <S'. toyata, the arrangement of the testes of tlie latter 

 in many rows does not agree with my observations upon those of 

 " (Hiditccnia eujwdotidis." As to <S'. emhiensis it seems to me to differ 

 from my sjiecies by the much more slender scole.x, that of my species 

 being more miissive. IJut the testes agree as being in ont; 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 Kussian authors. 



§ 1'. Z. S. 1914, p. Sf)!). 



