NEW TAPEWORMS FROM THE HYRAX. 595 



the possibility of their identity with any other species known from 

 the Hyrax. The two worms belong, as I think, to two different 

 species, but ai'e referable to the same genus without any doubt. 

 I shall consider the anatomy of both of them together. 



The larger specimen (text-fig. 79) measured about 90 mm. in 

 length by a greatest diameter of 5-6 mm. The proglottids are 

 very short in an antero-posterior direction, but, at any rate some 

 way back in the body, rather thick. If there is a neck present at 

 all it is very short. The scolex is unarmed and distinctly marked 

 off from the strobila, but not much wider than the ensuing body. 

 The latter increases gradually in width up to the widest point, 

 and towards the end of the body again decreases. Of the smaller 

 specimen I cannot give such precise details, since, believing at first 

 that both specimens were of the same species, I investigated this 

 individual anatomically withovit making full notes on its external 

 characters. It was, however, rather shorter and of less breadth, 

 while the anterior narrower region of the body widened out to 

 the full dimensions rather sooner than in the larger specimen. 



I have investigated the scolex by means of longitudinal sections 

 only in the smaller specimen last referred to. The four suckers 

 look directly upwards, their orifice being terminal in such sections. 

 There is nothing remarkable that I could detect about their 

 structure. They do not bulge to any extent from the sides of 

 the scolex, and these sections show that the scolex is hardly, if 

 indeed at all, wider than the immediately following strobila. The 

 rudimentary rostellum is merely a hemispherical elevation lying 

 between the suckers. There is no terminal pit of any kind and 

 no hooks discoverable. The water vascular tubes extend into the 

 rostellum. Of the larger specimen I only examined the scolex 

 without destroying it. It is clear that the structure is the same 

 in all the points mentioned above, but I am not able to report 

 upon the water vascular tubes in this region. 



The structure of the body-wall (text-fig. 80) also differentiates 

 these two species from the Ine7'micapsifer whose anatomy has been 

 described above. The principal difference lies in the much more 

 marked layer of transversely running fibres which bound the 

 cortical layer internally and the medullary parenchyma externally. 

 This layer is very much the same — I think exactly the same — in 

 both of the two individuals of this genus which I refer later to 

 different species. It is composed of very delicate fibres ; but the 

 layer, as a whole, is rendered more conspicuous by the fact that large 

 fibres belonging to the longitudinal layer occur between the trans- 

 versely running fibres. The cortical parenchyma is nearly as thick 

 as the medullary. The stout longitudinal fibres which run in the 

 former are to be found in the greatest numbers at about the 

 middle of the cortical layer, but they occur elsewhere. They are 

 not massed into large bundles, but two or three are here and there 

 closely associated. This massing of the longitudinal fibres is not 

 obvious in the larger specimen. 



