ANATOMY OF CESTODES. 187 



§ On the Uterus and Uterine Pore of Dasyurotaenia. 



Three years ago I described to the Society the general anatomy 

 of a new genus and species of Cestode from the Tasmanian Devil 

 ( Dasyurus ursimis), which I named Dasyurotcenia robusta *. Since 

 that date I have examined the intestines of several examples of 

 the same Marsupial without finding any more examples of that 

 worm until December of last year, when a specimen was found to 

 contain a number of fragments of a worm which I believe to be 

 of the same species. They were associated with a few examples 

 of Anoplotcenia dasyuri, which latter was also described by myself 

 as a new genus and species in the year 1911 f. Since that date 

 I have found Anoplotcenia dasyuri to be a not uncommon parasite 

 of the Dasyure, and to be present in the majority of the examples 

 examined for parasites. But the two genera have only occurred 

 together in the one specimen of the Dasyure referred to above. 

 It may be useful to state certain particulars of the Dasyures 

 examined with a view to gathering such facts as they reveal with 

 regard to infection by these worms. Out of nine examples of the 

 Dasyure, only two were without the tapeworm. One of these had 

 been four years and four months in the Gardens and might have 

 got rid of them ; the other had lived less than three weeks, and 

 thus might not have contracted the helminthiasis. But the fact 

 that the infected Dasyures died after being in the Gardens for 

 only 9 days, 7 months, or 14 months, etc., seems to argue that 

 the parasites are Australian. 



I cannot be positive as to the identity of the worms to be 

 described here with Dasyurotcenia robusta. But I feel confident 

 that they are of the same species, by reason of the general 

 correspondence of internal structure of the two series of worms. 

 The second lot of worms, however, had among them no scolices, 

 and. the scolex of Dasyurotcenia is, as I have duly pointed out in 

 my memoir, a highly characteristic feature of the genus and one 

 indeed which quite prevents its confusion with any other genus 

 hitherto described. But even without this important means of 

 identification there are some other features which, collectively at 

 any rate, leave no doubt upon my mind that the specimens 

 which I found more recently are the same species as that which 

 I fox-merly described. I rely more particularly upon the following 

 facts of structure, which I take this opportunity of confirming as 

 they are of importance : — The unilateral genital pores ; the very 

 large water-vascular vessel on either side with septa running 

 across : the absence (or, if present, minute size) of the usually 

 present smaller dorsal vessel. The total absence of the trans- 

 verse vessel in each segment. The existence of at any rate four 

 rows of longitudinal muscular bundles, all separated from each 

 other by transverse strands of muscle. These facts are as it 



* P. Z. S. 1912, p. 677. ' f P. Z. S. 1911, p. 1003. 



