PAOHYDERMATA 401 



sional name of T. magna, published a description of the strobile 

 of the same cestode from an Indian rhinoceros (R. unicomis). 

 From a total misconception of the character of the proglottides, 

 Murie was led to suppose that the segments of the strobile were 

 very deep as well as broad ; whereas the proglottids are 

 remarkably narrow, thus partaking of the characters of the 

 Tsenias of the larger herbivora in general. In a subsequent 

 paper Peters pointed out these errors. Murie had, in fact, 

 rolled several segments into one. In 1877 Professor Garrod 

 encountered the same cestode in Rhinoceros sondaicus, and, 

 following Peters' example, separated it from the Tsenise proper 

 (Plagiot&nia gigantea). The idea of generically separating 

 tapeworms possessing a more or less striking breadth of strobile 

 is not one which commends itself to my view, seeing that many 

 of the tapeworms of herbivora closely resemble the rhinoscerine 

 cestodes in this respect. As Diesing hints, this tapeworm 

 comes near to T. perfoliata, but Garrod's and Peters' figures 

 both show that Plagiotcenia wants the neck-lobes. The pre- 

 sence of cephalic appendages may be regarded as generically 

 distinctive, but it does not appear that Blanchard separated the 

 perfoliate tapeworm of the horse from the Tgeniae proper on this 

 ground. Therefore, in my account of the equine tapeworms, I 

 have not adopted his genus Anoplocephala. I may remark, in 

 passing, that if the distinctions, as between armed and un- 

 armed, or between proboscis-bearing (Rhynchot&niada) and 

 non-proboscis-bearing tapeworms (Arynchotceniada) , are to be 

 maintained, they should be expressive of divisional or sub- 

 ordinate value. Dr Weinland's arrangement, having reference 

 to the thick- and thin-shelled ova (Sclero- and Malaco-leptidota), 

 is, perhaps, preferable. The whole subject of classification 

 requires revision, but it should be undertaken by some helmin- 

 thologists practically acquainted with a large number of cestode 

 types. As Garrod has well observed, Plagiotaenia enjoys a 

 wide geographical distribution, infesting alike Indian and 

 African hosts. Prof. Garrod, I observe, speaks of the head of 

 the mature tapeworm as the scolex an extension of the mean- 

 ing of a term not usually recognised. In this, however, he 

 only follows Peters' unfortunate example. 



The wide distribution enjoyed by Peters' Plagiotsenia is 

 probably equalled by that -of the rhinocerine stomach-bot 

 (Gastrophilus rhinocerontis, Owen). This parasite was origin- 

 ally described in 1840, and since that time it has been fre- 



26 



