570 



DR. F. E. BEDDARD ON 



Both of these genera have a rostelkim which is armed with 

 ten hooks. The greater number of hooks in Diplopylidmm 

 might be regarded as a difference of merely specific value. But 

 while in Biplo'posthe * and Diplojyhcdlus the uterus is persistent, 

 and in mature segments occupies an enormous amount of space 

 in each ripe proglottid, Diplopyliclium has probably not a per- 

 sistent uterus at all ; or, if the spaces containing eggs which have 

 been described above are to be looked upon as remnants of a 

 uterus or of uteri, the conditions are obviously very different. 

 This important difference, as it appears to me, renders any con- 

 fusion between these forms quite impossible. I have referred 

 above to certain other comparisons between my genus and the 

 two that have just been compared with it. 



My genus presents certain points of likeness to the genus. 

 Cotugnia, founded by Diamare in 1893 1. The chief point 

 of likeness is that in Diplopylidmm the ripe eggs are imbedded 

 singly in the medullary parenchyma, as is stated to be the case 

 with Cotugnia. But in the latter genus, Fuhrmann J, though he 

 gives no figures showing detail, speaks of a " parenchymkapsel "^ 

 as surrounding the eggs. This is probably to be compared to 

 that of the allied Davainea, and, therefore, presumably is not 

 like that which I describe in the present paper. The vagina, too,, 

 of Cotugnia has a dilated receptaculum seminis. Otherwise I do. 

 not think that the two genera can be confused. The worms are 

 rather large species, and the rostellar hooks are numerous and 

 minute, and have the typical Davaineid form which is unlike 

 that which I find in Diplojjylidium. Biit Cottignia appears to^ 

 differ from other Davaineids in having no hooks upon the suckers 

 [" Ventose grandi e inerme" (Diamare)], and thus to approach 

 Diplopylidixim^ to which its double generative pores and possibly 

 the nature of the egg-cavities affine it. 



It may be furthermore pointed out that the genus Cotugnia 

 seems to be characterised by its short and broad proglottids, in 

 which it clearly differs from the worm upon which I report ia 

 the present communication. Diamare t, in his paper upon 

 Cotiignia (and other tapeworms), assigns to his new genus 

 a species described by Monticelli § from material named by 

 von Siebold. This species (" Tcenia bifaria^') has, as it appears 

 to me, rather more claims to be allied to my genus Diplopylidium 

 than to Cottcgnia, if Diamare is right in supposing Monticelli to 

 have overlooked the rostellar hooks. For in his figure || of the 

 generative oi'gans (which is repeated in Bronn's ' Thierreichs ' %),. 



* For the anatomy of BipJoposthe, see Jacobi in Zool. Jahvb. x. Anat. Abtli- 

 1897, p. 287 ; Kowalevsky, Bull. Ac. Cracow, 1903, p. 518, for a brief account of 

 Diplopostlie sui-generis n. sp. (?) ; and Fulirmann, Centralbl. Bakt. xl. p. 218, for 

 a general resume of this genus. 



t Boll. Soc. Nat. Napoli (1) vii. 1893, p. 11. 



X "Neue Davaineen," Centralbl. f. Bakt. u. Paras, xlix. p. 115; and Zool. kwr.^ 

 xxiv. 1901, p. 273. 



§ Boll. Soc. Nat. Napoli (1) v. 1891, p. 151. 11 Loc. cit. pi. viii. fig. 12. 



t PI. ivi. fig. 9. 



