32 Henry B. Ward 



tinct from that species. He also noted the name Loa under 

 which the form was known to the natives. Later authorities 

 denominate this a generic term for worm rather than a distinct 

 designation for this form. The citation of the date 1778 is cer- 

 tainly incorrect as his paper was first published in 1805 ; appar- 

 ently also he does not use the binomial form Filaria ha at all, so 

 that, if adopted, this name must rest upon some later authority. , 

 I do not feel called upon to suggest any change at present. 



Despite Guyot's view of its specific distinctness the parasite 

 continued to be confused with other forms or to be denied spe- 

 cific rank as late as 1851, the appearance of Diesing's mono- 

 graph. In 1881, after having had opportunity to examine a 

 specimen sent from Loango, Leuckart passed definitely and 

 favorably upon the question of its distinctness; and in 1886 

 Blanchard's paper settled finally the rank of the species. The 

 work of many later authors has aided in strengthening the posi- 

 tion then assigned to it. 



The parasite certainly belongs to the genus Filaria as now 

 generally accepted, and the proposal of Diesing and Cobbold to 

 transfer it from this to tlie related' genus Dracunciilus which 

 includes the Guinea worm was so evidently an error that in a 

 later edition Cobbold himself reversed his former action. 



The synonymy of the species is confused and depends in part 

 oil the positive determination of specimens for which no accurate 

 data can ever be given. A partial list of the names used by 

 various authors is given here for reference. 



Filaria iiicdincnsis Gmelin 1788, in part. 



of Diesing 185 1, in part. 

 Filaria lacrynialis Dubini 1850, nee Gurlt 183 1. 



Dujardin 1845 -46. 

 Filaria ocnli Jinmani Dujardin 1845 '4^- 



Filaria ocnli Gervais et van Beneden 1859:142; nee von Xord- 

 mann 1832. 

 Moquin-Tandon 1859, "^ part. 

 De Bonis 1876:129. 



;o2- 



