186 
n. M. WOODCOCK. 
not a karyolysing form at all. The small type (a) may be a 
young phase of (a) ; more than this cannot be said. At any 
rate it is to the first described parasite (type a) that the 
specific name lacertm really belongs. Comjjaring the 
different forms of the Hmmogregarine I have described 
above, from L. muralis, with Danilewsky’s description and 
figures of H. lacertm, it is perfectly clear that the parasite 
is the same species in both cases, and, moreover, in the same 
period of development; some of Danilewsky’s figures are of 
young forms, with the nucleus near the middle and the host- 
cell only slig’htly altered; others are of the older phase, with 
the nucleus at one end and the nucleus of the corpuscle 
completely karyolysed. 
The next account of Hmmogregarines from lizards was 
that of Labbe (13), who described parasites of this nature 
from L. muralis, viridis and o cel lata. Labbe con- 
sidered that the various forms which he observed belonged 
to two distinct genera, to which he gave the names 
Karyolysus and Danilevskya respectively. With the 
series of forms comprised in the latter genus we are not here 
concerned; it is very doubtful whether any are included 
which should really be kept separate from the ordinary 
genus Haemogregarina.^ In the genus Karyolysus 
‘ It may 1.)e noted, however, that Lahfjc seems to have piaid no regard 
at all to the laws and standards of nomenclature, for he deliberately 
placed in this genus the parasite of Cistndo euro pa' a, originally 
described by Danilewsky under the name Hamogregarina stepa- 
novi, that is to say, the type-species of the genus Ha mogregarina 
in other words, at his own pleasure, he replaced the generic name 
Hamogregarina by that of Danilevskya. If he wished thus to 
commemorate the Russian sav'ant's name he ought, of course, to have 
called the parasite which he distinguished as Karyolysus by his name 
histead. Moreover, for the species of “ Danilevskya” which he found 
hi lizards he created the name lacazei, although saying at the time 
that this was probably the same form as that distinguished by Dani- 
lewsky as Huiinocytozoon clavatum. In any case, thei'cfore, this 
Ha;mogregarine of lizards should bear the specific name clavatu m (not 
lacaze i),and if it does not belong to the genus Htemogregarina. the 
generic name II a'm ocy tozoon, not Danilevskya, must be given to if 
