1870. ] DR. J. MURIE ON A NEW TAPEWORM. 609 
minthology,’ Dr. Spencer Cobbold says, “The larger Pachyderms 
and Solidungulates harbour a few adult forms; but only the larvee 
appear to be known in Swine; a true Tenia, however, has been 
described as occurring in the aberrant genus Hyraz.’”’ The same 
writer, in an examination of 122 different animals, which died in 
the Society’s Gardens (1857-60), only came across two supposed new 
species of Oysticerci and a Strongylus among the Perissodactyles*. 
Rudolphi in his ‘Synopsis,’ Diesing in his elaborate ‘Systematic 
Treatise,’ and Dujardin in his ‘ Hist. Nat. Helm.’ make no mention 
of Tapeworm frown Rhinoceros. 
When Dr. Baird published his ‘Catalogue of Species of Ento- 
zoa’ (1853) there were comparatively few species in the series from 
the Ungulata; many additions have since been made; but still in 
the British-Museum collection at present there is no representative 
of Tzeniadz from the Rhinocerotidee. 
That gentleman, with his usual urbanity on all occasions, readily 
lends assistance when research in his department is sought; and I 
take this opportunity of thanking him for his many kindnesses. 
A couple of years ago some dozen joints of what I may safely 
term an enormous Tapeworm were placed in my hands by Mr. 
Bartlett, they having been passed by the young male Rhinoceros in- 
dicus in the Gardens. I had drawings made of the most characte- 
ristic pieces thereupon, and before shrinkage ensued. These sketches 
are reproduced in the accompanying sketch (fig. 1). I searched 
carefully among the fragments, but did not discover ahead. The ce- 
phalic segment (so essential for the identification of the species) being 
wanting, I waited, thinking, perchance, more pieces might after- 
wards be thrown out, and it among them. As not only a reasonable 
time, but a long period has now elapsed, and nothing further been 
obtained from the Rhinocerotes (for I understand the female when 
young exhibited symptoms of worms), I have less hesitation in pub- 
lishing what I know (though imperfect data) than in postponing a 
notice until the teenoid head is forthcoming. 
The largest proglottid joint among those obtained is that marked 
D in the woodcut; it is 1:6 inch broad and 11 inch long. The 
smallest of those figured (4) measures 0°6 across and 0°5 inch in 
extreme length. There was still another piece, 0-1 inch less in both 
dimensions; but this was put in spirits and shrunk before the 
drawing of the others was finished; so I have not thought proper 
to include it in the illustrations I now give. Its shape was similar 
to 4; and both of these segments possibly were from the front part 
of the body. The sizes of different species intermediate between 
what I have mentioned are given in the outlines B, C, #, F. 
I regard the worm under consideration as belonging to the genus 
Tenia, from the position of the genital apertures being lateral or 
marginal, and not mesially placed as is the case in Bothriocephalus. 
* “List of Entozoa,” P. Z. 8. 1861, p. 117, and also p. 93 (“ Cystic Entozoa”’) ; 
but Cobbold since acknowledges that Leuckart has corrected him on the score 
of specific difference of one specimen obtained. 
