NOTES ON SPOROZOA n. 
193 
ance the hypertrophied nucleus of the host-cell, and, in fact, 
may be connected with the latter (for instance, the cap on the 
right-hand side of the upper parasite of fig. 7). Now, as 
stated above, I have observed a very similar appearance in 
some individuals of K. lacertas in Giemsa-stained smears 
(cf. figs. 16-18). In my opinion there is no doubt whatever 
that these " caps,” in the case of Fran 9 a’s parasite also, are 
simply the result of the alteration to the nucleus, the thicker 
or club-shaped end-parts of which curve round the parasite 
and may be almost or quite detached from the middle portion ; 
these caps have nothing whatever to do, directly, with the 
parasite. A perfectly similar behaviour of the nucleus of 
the blood-corpuscle has been described by Billet [2] in 
the case of K. (H.) curvirostris ; two of this author’s 
figures show exactly the same condition. Other points about 
Fran^a’s account of K. “ bicapsulata,” e. g. the average 
size, the presence of a definite envelope around the parasite, 
make me practically certain in my own mind that this is 
not a new species at all, but only a phase of K. lacertse 
corresponding to the second, older type described above. I 
should add, however, that Laveran and Pettit also seem to 
regard this “ bicapsulata” as a distinct species, although 
they say that they found it associated with lacertae, and 
mention further that, in deeply stained specimens, the “caps” 
stain very similarly to the deformed host-cell nucleus ! 
K . ( H .) nobrei. This form Laveran and Pettit (loc . cit. ) 
themselves consider resembles K. lacertm so closely that it 
is doubtful whether it is really a distinct species. In my own 
preparations I have not come across any individuals which 
e.xactly represent this form ; the parasite drawn in fig. 15, 
however, shows considerable resemblance in size and general 
appearance to the form figured by Franca in his fig. 2, the 
chief difference being in the position of the nucleus, which is 
near the middle of the parasite in Fran^a’s case. I should 
say it is very likely that this is just one of those cases referred 
to above, where a different phase in the life-cycle of the 
parasite has come under observation. From a consideration 
VOL. 58, PART 1. — NEW SERIES. 13 
