SEA-FISHERIES LABORATORY. 91 



another cestode a somewhat similar condition was present, 

 but the myzorhynehal lobes were asymmetrically arranged, 

 there being a group of five small ones on one margin ; at 

 either end of this series a larger lobe, and on the opposite 

 margin three larger and natter ones ; there was also a 

 central lobe. As in the case of the scolex just described 

 the lobes were low and not free at their apice from the 

 myzorhynchus. 



Beneath these lobate appendages there was in the 

 first specimen, a stout and very distinct rim on the scolex. 

 This is represented in outline by the margin in fig. 8. 

 Below this were four suckers. These were sessile, and 

 there were no traces of pedicels. 



At first I was inclined to approximate these specimens 

 to the genera Polycephalus Braun, or Parataenia Linton, 

 in which there are about sixteen longish tentacles on the 

 scolex, and, beneath these, four suckers. But the lobate 

 structures in the specimens which I have described here 

 can hardly be regarded as tentacles, unless one regards the 

 amount of contraction as excessive; while the sessile, 

 sucker-like appendages beneath the myzorhynehal rim are 

 not at all like the sucker of a Taenia, to which category the 

 suckers in Polycephalus and Parataenia apparently belong. 

 It is evident, from a glance at fig. 8, that the suckers are 

 bothridia of the Echeneiform type. Only some of the 

 costae can be seen, and the whole organ is very much con- 

 tracted. It resembles the bothrium of such a cestode as 

 Anthohothrium rather than that of an Echeneihothrium, but 

 these organs are so versatile that one can hardly regard 

 even this deviation from the normal form as of importance 

 as a diagnostic character. 



I am forced to conclude that these are simply 

 specimens of Echeneihothrium variabile with the proboscis 

 everted through the m vzorhyncbal os. Tt is difficult to con- 



