On Kusphenopteris tenella and Sphenopteris microcarpa. 7 
its Cysticercus. It is true that we have not made a special 
search ; but the veterinary surgeons and slaughterhouse-men 
have never observed it. One must conclude that this Cyst?- 
cercus is never very abundant in the animals that it inhabits. 
One may, however, remark that the Cysticercus cannot be 
absolutely rare, since its Tcnza is frequent... . . 5, 
He gives also, on pl. i. fig. 6, a drawing of this Cys- 
tacercus (of T. saginata), and refers to a fold, pl’, near the 
external opening of the canal, which he found constant in the 
SIX or seven specimens he examined. 
In my specimens, although there were suggestions of this 
fold, it was never so well marked as in his drawings, and was 
not unfrequently altogether absent. 
EXPLANATION OF PLATE IL. 
Figs. 1-4. Enlarged views of the whole Cysticercus. 
Fig. 5. Longitudinal section through anterior extremity, passing through 
the canal and the prominence of head of future Tenia. 
Fig. 6. Prominence of head of future Tenia, showing suckers and absence 
of hooklets. 
e= calcareous corpuscles ; h=prominence of head of future Tenia; m= 
muscular fibres; o=opening at anterior extremity; p, posterior extre- 
mity, in most instances notched ; s=sucker ; v=vessels, 
IL—On the Fructification of Eusphenopteris tenella, 
Brongn., and Sphenopteris microcarpa, Lesg. By Roperr 
KIDSTON*. 
[Plate I.] 
I. Husphenopteris (Sphenopteris) tenella, Brongn. 
(Pl. I. figs. 1-6.) 
Histoire des Végétaux fossiles, pl, 49. fig. 1; Illustrations of Fossil 
Plants, pl. xxxix.T 
The barren and fertile fronds of this fern are dissimilar; and 
were it not for their occurring in unusually favourable circum- 
stances, it would be impossible to ascertain that these two 
forms of fronds belong to the same species. I have found no 
fern associated with Husphenopteris tenella, with the exception 
* Communicated by the Author, having been read before the Royal 
Physical Society, Edinburgh, April 19, 1882. 
e Edited by G. A, Lebour, 1877. 
