EA-icorm in Paper-luuujers' Paste. 2l.'9 



In a later woik (2) the same author deals with Atiguillala 

 ghitinis farinosf, or paste-eel, and distinguishes it from 

 A. aceti, with which he sa} s Liniia2us confused it. lie makes 

 it clear that A. aceti is a much slenderer and longer organism 

 than tiio paste eel-worm. 



llooke (7), p. 46, says that th« eels in paste seem to be 

 nearly the same as those ot vinegar, and also quotes 

 Dr. Power's observations on the effort of heat. 



Duges (5) recognized Vibrio (jlutmis as distinct from 

 V. acdi, and his figures of the tail-ends of the female worms 

 show the more finely tapering eharacter of that of V. aceti in 

 com|)arisi>ii with that of V. glatiids. 



Dujardin (6) gives mt usureinents of both glutinis and 

 acetif which he transferred to the genus Rhabditis. It is not 

 clear from his account whether he actually examined the 

 ])a£>te eel-worm. He gives the proportion of length to breadth 

 as about 20 to 1 for glutinis and Irom 30-45 to 1 for aceti. 



Bastian (4) made observations only on aceti, and was 

 unable to obtain ghitmis, though he tried to grow it in paste. 

 Ho holds to the opinion that the two species are distinct, and 

 quotes in support Dujardin (6) and Davaine (private letter). 

 Bastian's figures of aceti show the male spicules with a 

 double curve, the anterior ends being dorsally bent. 



(Schneider (10), p. 160, combined aceti and glutitiis under 

 one species — oxo/Jiila, — and transferred them to another 

 genus, viz. Leptodeia. His figures show that he was dealing 

 only with aceti, for the spicules have the same shape as those 

 figured by Bastian. Although he observed eel-worms in 

 both vinegar and paste, there can be no doubt that he was 

 dealing with only one form. It is easily understandable that 

 aceti would grow well in such a medium as sour paste where 

 there is present an appreciable amount of acid. 



Oerley (9), p. 164, followed Schneider in putting aoetiand 

 glutinis into the common species oxophila^ and, like him, he 

 only succeeded in raising aceti in vinegar and paste. 



Stiles and Hassall (u), pp. 34-37, discuss in detail the 

 history- of the genus Anguil/u/a (Miiller), and show clearly 

 that the sour-paste eel-worm is really the type-species of the 

 genus Anguillula. I quote their last paragraph from p. 35, 

 in which they sum up the case in relation to this parasite : — 



'^ In Anguillula, Muller, 1786, there is a species ^/M</ni'*, 

 1783, with anguillula, 1773, as synonym ; hence anguillula, 

 1773, is type by tautonomy of Anguillula, 1784; but as 

 anguillula, 1773, equals redivivmn, Linn?eus, 1767, renamed, 

 this latter name, in its emended sense — namely, as equal to 

 glutinis, 1783, — should stand as type-species of Anguillula, 



