284 DE. T. S. COBB OLD ON" STROISTGYLTIS ARNFIELDI. 



Fig. 10. Glyci'phagus dispar. Adult female, first left leg, from above. x300. 



11. . Adult female, second left leg, from above. x300. 



12. . Adult female, third left leg, from above. X 300. 



13. ■. Adult female, fourth left leg, from above. X 300. 



14. . Adult male, first left leg, from above. x400. 



15. . Adult male, third left leg, from above. X400. 



16. . Adult male, fourth left leg, from above. X400. 



17. . Adult niale, arrangement of the intromittent organ and 



surrounding sclerites, &c. 



Description of Strongyliis Arnfieldi (Cobb.), with Observations on 

 Strongylus tetracantJius (Mebl.). By T. Spencer Cobbold, 

 M.D., r.E.S., F.L.S., Hon. Vice-Pres. Birmingham Nat. 

 Hist, and Microsc. Society. 



[Eead 4th March, 1886.] 



(Plate XXXVI.) 



It has been commonly taken for granted that all the Nematodes 

 hitherto found to infest the lungs of Solipeds are referable to the 

 species which proves so destructive to young cattle. On the 

 authority of Eichler in the one case and of Grurlt in the other, 

 Diesing states that the cattle Strongyle {Strongylus micrurus) 

 infests Equus cahallus and E. asinus. As regards the horse I 

 have verified Eichler's find, but as regards the ass it happens 

 that all the lung-vrorms carefully examined by me are of a different 

 species. This circumstance does not, of course, disprove the 

 accuracy of Grurlt's position, but ratlier renders it probable that 

 at least two nematode -species infest the lungs of both hosts. 



On the ]st of December, 1882, Mr. Amfield, at that time a 

 pupil of the Eoyal Veterinary College, brought me some worms 

 removed from the trachea and bronchi of a donkey. The batch 

 comprised three males and ten females, most of the latter being 

 much injured. Guided by their size and general aspect it was 

 easy enough to suppose that the worms were examples of Stron- 

 gylus micrurus ; but a microscopic examination showed that the 

 naked-eye appearances were deceptive. The worm, in fact, was 

 new to science, and it was accordingly named after its discoverer. 

 To secure priority in the finder's favour a brief description fol- 

 lowed in the pages of ' The Veterinarian ' (Jan. 1884), but no 

 figure of the worm has hitherto been published. Subsequent to 



