80 Mr. W. Xicoll on tie 



with those obtained from my specimens. It deals mainly 

 with tl>e external nppearanee, and as his fiu;nre is poor little 

 cxaet knowled<jje of the more important internal orjjjans is to 

 he derived from it. The snekers and alimentary eanal are 

 distinetly reprodneed, as are also the testes. The penis-sac 

 (" cirrus-poueli ") occnpies its proper position, but the 

 jjcnital aperture is in the middle line almost directly over 

 the intestinal bifurcation. Two round bodies are figured iu 

 front of the testes, but their nature is not noted. From 

 analogy the posterior of the two bodies would represent the 

 ovary, but it is much larger than I am accustomed to see it, 

 and, in fact, is as largo as cither of the testes. In the same 

 way the anterior body would be the vesieula seminalis, but 

 it is much further behind the ventral sucker than in my 

 specimens. The yolk-glands are not well indicated. A most 

 important feature of dilierence lies in the arrangement of 

 the spines, which, if Linton's figure is to be depended on, 

 would distinctly differentiate his sj)ccimen. lie represents 

 them as scales (from the anterior region), in close array, 

 overlapping but not arranged alternately. On no part have 

 I observed such an arrangement; the spines are certainly 

 scale-like on the neck, but they are avcU spaced and always 

 alternate with those of the next row. Tiius, in the absence 

 of more exact information, it is iuipossible to determine 

 whether Linton's one specimen is Lepodura rachi(Ba, Cobbold, 

 or not, but it is certainly very near it. 



Subfamily EcuiNOSTOirix^, Looss. 



Genus Stephanociiasmus, Looss. 



1-^00. Stephano^fomujn, Lss. Zool. J.ihrb. Syst. xii. p. 576. 

 1900. atephanochasmus, Lss. Zool. Auz. xxiii. p. 003. 



Stephanociiasmus baccatus, sp. u. (PI. II. figs. 5-7.) 



Of this species I have been able to obtain only one speci- 

 men. It occurred in the rectum of a halibut {Hippuylossns 

 vnlgaris), and at first sight appeared to correspond so closely 

 with my recoUeetiou of Stephanochasmus cesticillus, Molin, 

 that I regarded it as such and placed it aside. A note 

 by Looss * ou some examples of this latter form, drawing 

 attention to an error or variation in the number and 

 arrangement of the cireumoral spines, induced me to re- 

 examine my specimen. Several features of difference at 

 once presented themselves; moreover, comparison with the 



* Zool. Jahrb. Syst. xii. p. 696. 



