PARASITES OF ELEPHANTS. 



267 



Historical Jievietv. — This species was independently described 

 by Railliet and his co-workers on the one hand, and by Lane on 

 the other. The descriptions in some respects are complementary. 

 Lane definitely mentions that an accessory piece is absent. 

 Railliet and his colleagues do not mention it at all. Thei^e is 

 important discrepancy in tlie bursal rays as described and drawn. 

 Lane records the presence of a long pre-bursal papilla assuming 

 the appeai'ance of a ray and lying close in front of the double 

 ventral ray. This is completely missed by the other observers. 

 On the other hand, Railliet figures two small branches to the 

 dorsal ray, while Lane records one only. The head end is well 



Text-fjgure 65. 



Aviira pileata Raill., Henrjf & Bauclie. Cephalic portion of boclj'. 



represented in the diagram of Railliet. It is thought advisable 

 to re-describe the bursa. 



The Bursa is greatly elongated. This is due mainly to the 

 length of the dorsal lobe. The bursa is TO mm. in length 

 and 0-55 mm. in breadth. The cuticle in front of the bursa on 

 the ventral surface is very much thickened. The free edges of 

 the lateral lobes of the bursa are folded inwards, obscuring the 

 exact mode of ending of the lateral rays. 



The pre-bursal papilla is vei^y long and thin. It pursues a 

 wavy course, and ends close to the termination of the ventral 

 i-ay. It is 0*25 mm. in length. 



