SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 



NOTES ON THE NEMATODE GENUS CAMALLANUS 

 Recently a paper by Dr. G. A. MacCallum entitled " Notes 

 on the Genus Camallanus and Other Nematodes from Various 

 Hosts" has come to my attention. It is dated July, 1918, and 

 appeared in Zoopathologies I have carefully investigated the 

 date of the paper and find that although it appeared in the July, 

 1918, number of Zoopathologica it was not received at the Library 

 of the Bureau of Animal Industry until August, 1919, and at 

 that time neither the John Crerar, the National Museum Library, 

 the Library of Congress, nor the New York Public Library had 

 received their copies. The Secretary of the New York Zoological 

 Society stated that the edition was sent to Dr. MacCallum, Oc- 

 tober 14, 1918, and as nearly as I can learn was not mailed out 

 until August, 1919. In a personal letter Dr. MacCallum stated 

 that the paper was "partly issued on July 1, 1918." My paper 

 on Camallanus americanus was mailed out on August 13, 1919, 

 and since I can not obtain a definite statement as to the date on 

 which MacCallum 's paper was mailed, it is impossible for me to 

 state which paper actually has priority of date. MacCallum 's 

 paper was unknown to me at the time my monograph on C. amer- 

 icanus (1919) was published; hence it seems that I should dis- 

 cuss the form described by MacCallum, since some of my con- 

 cepts concerning the genus and its species do not conform with 

 his observations. 



In the first place, attention should be called to the fact that 

 MacCallum was undoubtedly misled by the brevity of a prelim- 

 inary paper by Ward and Magath (1917) into thinking that we 

 believed the two species described were the first from America, 

 as MacCallum asserts. We were well aware of the fact that Leidy 

 (1851) had found the genus, under another name, many years 

 before and had named several species from America. At the 

 time we had many records of it and a great deal of material and, 

 in fact, considered it a common parasite. I have gone over the 

 paper quite carefully and can not see why MacCallum should 

 say that the "general tenor" of our paper implies that the worm 

 is rare. 



MacCallum apparently places the genus Camallanus in a sub- 



