5fl() 



by imm broad, wedge-shaped; head 200 Ifi long by 205 fi broad, 

 contracted posteriorly to form the neck; retractile rotellum cyl- 

 indrical, 150 fi] long by 37.5 fi broad, bearing 12 (von Linstow, 

 Magalhaes, Plana) or 12-14 Grassi & Rovelli) hooks which meas- 

 ure 25 f^ (Magalhaes) or 32 // (other authors) long; dorsal root 

 of hooks short and same length as ventral root. Suckers round 

 to oval, 75 u in diameter, unarmed. Segments 12-13 in number, 

 increasing gradually in size from the first to the last, so that 

 the entire body is wedge-shaped. Genital pores irregularly 

 alternate, situated at the anterior angle of the segments; male 

 organs appear in first segments, testicles "numerous," vitel- 

 laria seen in ninth and following segments; mature eggs seen 

 only in twelfth and thirteenth segments; they lie in 12-1:? large 

 vesicles which finally break, the eggs being scattered through 

 the segments. Eggs spherical, 42 fi in diameter, with 2 mem- 

 branes; hooks of oncosphere, 6 /i . 



Development: Intermediate host is probably an earthworm 

 (Allobophora foetida Eisen). The cysticercoid has no tail. 



Host: Chickens (Gallus domesticus). 



Geographical distribution: Germany (von Linstow); Italy 

 (Grassi & Rovelli); South America— Brazil (Magalhaes). 



Von Linstow (1872B, pp. 56-57) discovered this worm in chick- 

 ens in Germany ,and described it as Taenia cuneata. Plana 

 (1882, p. 393-394) evidently examined some of von Linstow's ori- 

 ginals, but does not add much to the diagnosis. Grassi & Rov- 

 elli (18S9A, p. 404; 1892, pp. 29-30, 88-90) found the same species 

 in Italy; they found some cysticercoids in the earthworm (Al- 

 lobophora foetida), which they believe represent the larval 

 stage of T. cuneata. They evidently, however, did not make 

 any experiments to determine this point, although they state 

 that the hooks agree with the hooks of T. cuneata. This sup- 

 posed intermediate host must therefore be subjected to experi- 

 mentation before Grassi & Rovelli's statements are giv?n full 

 credence. Magalhaes (1892, pp. 145-146) records the i^ame 

 species from Brazil, adding several important points on the 

 anatomy of the worm. Railliet (1892, p. 53) uses the term 

 Taenia sphenoides for this worm, his ground evidently being 

 that the term T. cuneata is already preoccupied. In 1893 (p. 

 304) he reverts to the specific name cuneata, placing the form 

 in Dicranotaenia. By the international rules the term cuneata 

 must fall, on which account I accept the next available name, 

 sphenoides. (See addendum, p. 637.) 



