ON THE ANATOMY OF CESTODES. 175 



15. Contributions to the Anatomy and Systematic Arrange- 

 ment o£ the Cestoidea. By Frank E. Beddard, M.A., 

 D.Sc., F.R.S., F.Z.S., Prosector to the Society. 



[Received February 9, 1915 : Read March 23, 1915.] 

 (Text-figures 1-8.) 



XYI. On Certain Points in the Anatomy of the Genus 

 Amabilia and of Dasyttrotjenia. 



Index. Page 



Anatomy of Amabilia 175 



Anatomy of Dasyurotcenia 187 



Although several observers, especially Cohn and Diarnare 

 (whose memoirs will be referred to later), have collected a large 

 number of facts relating to the structure of the genus Amabilia, 

 there still remain a few points upon which these authorities 

 have not definitely pronounced, or concerning which their 

 opinions differ. It is with these that I deal in the present com- 

 munication to the Society. My notes are based upon numerous 

 sections taken through different regions of the body of one 

 example of the species (the only species) Amabilia lamelligera, 

 which I was able to preserve in a satisfactory condition for 

 microscopic purposes. 



§ Scolex. 



Concerning the scolex of Amabilia lamelligera some differences 

 of opinion have been expressed in published accounts. These have 

 been dealt with by Dr. Ludwig Cohn up to the period at which 

 his own memoir on the species appeared *. The original describer 

 of the species, Sir E,. Owen, defined it f {inter alia) as " capite sub- 

 globoso, rostello cylinclrico obtuso," as duly quoted by Cohn. 

 Owen's paper, however, contains no further description of the 

 scolex ; nor is it represented in his figures of the worm +. The 

 figure, however, illustrating the worm represents it as tapering 

 gradually at the head end ; the scolex therefore was doubtless 

 quite visible — which was not the case with the specimen studied 

 by myself until it was examined by sections. 



von Linstow's § description of the worm is, according to Cohn, 

 not of Amabilia at all, but of Hymenolepis megalorchis, known to 

 be a parasite of the Flamingo. The first part of this statement 

 seems to be undoubtedly correct ; the rest is certainly probable. 



* Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool. Ixvii. 1900, pp. 255, 256. 



t Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. i. p. 386. 



X Plate xli. figs. 21 & 22. 



§ Wiirt. naturwiss. Jahrb. xxxv. 1879. 



13* 



