122 THE FUR SEALS OF THE PKIBIEOF ISLANDS. 



may show that A. Kilkenthalii Cohh (see p. 144) is synouynions with tlie form now 

 under discussion. In detail the liistory of ^. sinqyJex is as follows: 



Historical Keview.— liudolphi's (1809, p. 170) original diagnosis reads as 

 follows : 



35. Ascaria simplex R. 



Ascaris: CapUe teiiiiiore candaque teretibits ohtusis. 



Hab. : In Delphini Dioraenac ventriculo priiuo ;ib am. Albers magiui copia ioi>crta, et ineciim 

 coinmunicata. 



Descr. : Vermes i)ollicfiii vel setsciuipollicem longi, crassiusculi, albidi, 8i>iialitci- convoluti. 



Caput obtusum, trivalve, valvulis exiguis. Corpus nudniue teres, utrinque, autrorsnm tauieu 

 luagis attcnuatum. Cauda obtusa. Membrana linearis nullilii conspicua. 



Obs. : Inter specimiuaplurima vix unum alterumvepossideo, cujiis cutis vel iu antica vel in ])()stica 

 parte in processum pellucidum ot vacuum protracta non sit, ut Ascaridc obiter spectala mox caput 

 niox Cauda vacua appareat. Nil nisi cmpbyscmapost mortem obortum, cutem laxiorom tanien iudicans, 

 alias eniui baec in crenas i)otius abiisset. 



Later Kudolphi (1819, p. 49) adds: 

 Asc. capite undo, corpore retrosuni crassiore, cauda obtusa. » * » ^u hue n. 82? 



N. 82, to which he refers, is Ascaris delphini, cited by Kudolphi (1819, pp. 54, 296) 

 as having: been collected by Lebeck in Delphinns (janfietints ( Platanista (/(tnf/efica). 

 There is, however, nothing in Lebeck's citation of the worm which warrants the 

 assumption that his form was Ascaris simplex, and although nearly all authors consider 

 it a synonym of that species, and on this ground give A. simplex as one of the parasites 

 of riatanista ganyetica, it seems to us much more logical to dispose of the doubtful 

 species A. delphini by making it a doubtful synonym of Ascaris lohulata, which is 

 described from the same host species (P. gangetica), or by ignoring it entirely. (See 

 p. 162.) 



Regarding the worms which Dujardin (1845, jip, 220, 221) determined as Ascaris 

 simjdex Kudolphi some dilference of opinion e.vists among authors. Diesing (1851, p. 

 155) and Stossich (1896, p. 17) accept the determination as correct, while van Beneden 

 (1870, p. 362) considers that these parasites represent a distinct species A. Dussumicrii; 

 von Linstow (1888, p. 3) even doubts whether the Dujardin's worms belong to the 

 genus Ascaris. The host was a dolphin, taken near the Maldives in 18'^0. (See 

 p. 161.) 



Crei)lin (1851, pp. 158, 160) described under the name Ascaris angulivalvis tliree 

 si)ecimens of nematodes taken from Balaena rostrata {=Balaenoptera rostrata); tiie 

 worms were given to him by Oskar Schmidt, who received them in 1850 from Mr. Koren, 

 of Bergen. One of the specimens was deposited in the Zoological Museum in Greifs- 

 wald. More exact data concerning the origin of specimens were not published. Creplin 

 was unable to utilize lludolphi's diagnosis of vl. simplex in trying to determine his own 

 specimens, since the descrii)tion was so poor, but he considered liis parasite closely 

 related to, yet perfectly distinct from, the worms which Dujardin determined as 

 A. simplex. Crei>lin's description reads as follows: 



Die drei obeu erwalinten Specimina bestauden iu einem — deni Anschoin nach — erwacbsencn I'aare 

 uiid oiuom Jiingeren Weibchen. Sie waren siimmtlich schrautzig gran von Farbo. Das Miinuchen des 

 I'aares war ungcfiihr 2'i" lang und in der Mitte IJ" ' dick, das Weil)cben desselben etwa 3i" lang nnd 

 in der Mitte If" dick. Das jiingore Weibchen hatte (^ine Liitige von 2" und eino iiiittlfre Dicke von 

 c. I"'. Bcide fJcscblechter wjiren nach vorn ein wenig melir, als na/'h liintcn, verschniiichtigt; von 

 Seiteumembranen fcblte bier, wie Ijei Kudolphi's nnd Dujardin's Species, jede Spur. 



