612 



that the gcueiic positian of this species is doubtful. 

 (See addeiiduui, p. (loT.) 



I refrain fi-oui discussing this form further, except 

 to remark that practically nothing is definitely Icnown 

 aboit the species. Orety's description is the only one 

 which can be given the dignity of a diagnosis, and yet 

 that was not based upon originals. The earlier de- 

 scriptio-ns, which take no account of the internal ana- 

 tomy of the segments, are almost useless so far as 

 zoological descriptions are concerned. Were it not for 

 the fact that the original host (chickens) is known, I 

 have the most serio-us doubt whether it would ever be 

 possible to recognize this form; and whether even the 

 numerous specimens recorded from chickens as T. in- 

 fundibuliformis are to be considered as such is, in my 

 opinion, an open question. I have specimens o-f worms 

 from pigeons (Ck)lumba. domestica) and from turkeys 

 (Meleagris gallopavo mexicana), which I should like 

 to determine as Dr. infundibuliformis, but it seems 

 to me that this specific name, like Taenia expansa o-f 

 older authors, is only a Latinized form of expressing 

 one's doubts or ignorance as to what species is in the 

 hands of a given worker, while as for the suppo-sed 

 life history, with the fly as intermediate host, although 

 I am not willing to deny the correctness of the hypo- 

 thesis, I do insist that it is only an hypothesis, with 

 little back of it, and that it is now time to call a halt 

 on such speculative work and to distinguish between 

 what is shown experimentally to be fact, and what 

 might possibly be shown to be fact. (See also Taenia 

 nigropnnotntn.) 



