49 
(FILARIA?) HOMINIS ORIS«Leidy, 1850? = MERMITHIDa: 
1850: Filaria hominis oris Leidy, 1850f, 117; (in mouth of a child; U. S. A.); 1856b; 
1904a, 40, 101 (as possible syn. of F. medinensis). — Anders, 1903, 6 ed., 
1258. — Anderson, 1903, 1258. — Annett, Dutton, Elliott, 1901, 14. — Beneden, 
1878a, 278. — Blanchard, 1890a, 13-14; 1895, 785. — Braun, 1883a, 182; 1895b, 
227; 1903, 3 ed., 275. — Cobbold, 1879b, 207. — Dunglison, 1893a, 440. — 
Leuckart, 1876, 617. — Lewis, 1879, 257. — Moniez, 1896, 359. — Packard, , 
518.— Penel, 1895, 8.— Tyson, 1903, 3 ed., 1198.— Ward, 1895, 330; 1903,704; 
1903, 212. 
Specific Diagnosis. — Filarial: “Body, white, opaque, linear, thread-like; mouth 
round, simple; posterior extremity obtuse, furnished with a short, curved, epider- 
mal booklet l-500th in. in length by l-2000th in. in diameter at base. Length, 5 
inches 7 lines; greatest breadth, l-66th in.; breadth at mouth, l-250th in.; at 
posterior extremity l-80th in.” — Leidy, 1850f, ji. 117. 
Habitat. — Obtained from mouth of a child. 
Medical Significance.— At the present time this species is with- 
out any medical significance, and from the original description of the 
worm it is impossible to pass any positive judgment upon it from a 
zoological point of view. The question naturally arises, however, 
whether this worm was not in reality a hair worm (possibly Mermis)^ 
which accidentally gained access to the mouth, possibly through eating 
an apple. On several occasions worms which were found in apples 
have been sent to me; they were probably parasitic in some insect, 
which in turn was parasitic in an apple; they agree fairly well with 
Leidy’s original short description of Filaria hominis oris^ and possess 
the ‘‘epidermal booklet” on the end of the tail. Such worms could 
easily gain access to the mouth through eating apples. 
Leidy’s description does not apply very well to the genus Filaria; 
furthermore, it would be rather strange to find a true Filaria^ 5 
inches long, in the mouth. While no positive opinion can be expressed 
unless Leidy’s original specimen^ can be found, I incline to the view 
that Filaria hominis oris was probably a Mermis. Such a worm 
would probabl}^ be of ver}^ slight, if of any, medical importance. 
(FILARIA'?) GIGAS Prout, 1902, species dubia = ”? Insect hairs. 
1902: Filaria gigas Prout, 1902, Sept. 20, 880 {in Homo', Moyamba, Sierra Leone, West 
Africa); 1902, Oct. 15, 318-319; 1905, Sept. 16, 683. — Blanchard, 1905a, 
538.— Looss, 1905c, 170 (possibly only a sheath). — Low, 1905b, 1329-1330 
(probably insect hairs). — Manson, 1903, 546, 604. — Penel, 1905, 5, 10, 81, 
125, 141, 147. 
<3^ This name is here retained although, being a specific trinominal, it has no status 
in nomenclature as a specific name. Since however the species is so doubtful, there 
is no object in giving to it another name. As here used, Filaria hominis oris simply 
represents the Latin for “a filaria in the mouth of man.” 
^Edw. J. Nolan, secretary of the Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia, informs me 
that the original specimen can not be found in Philadelphia, and that it has probably 
been destroyed. 
22815— No. 34—07 4 
