556 
Tetratrichomonas buccalis 
In the amoeboid form shown in Fig. 21 it is seen as a straight rod. 
It stains rather more deeply than the cytoplasm of the body, and does 
not stand out as clear, almost unstained organ, as represented in the 
drawings of many species of Trichomonas, but resembles more the 
appearance of the axostyle figured by Mackinnon (1913) in Tetra- 
trichomastix parisii. 
The question of the naming of this organism presents certain 
difficulties. 
It is, without doubt, the same trichomonad as that figured by 
Doflein (1911, p. 493) and by Jollos (1913, p. 693), the figures being 
taken from Prowazek. The finely tajiering tail portion and the appear¬ 
ance of the undulating membrane prove this. Doflein calls it Tri¬ 
chomonas hominis, and Jollos T. intestinalis; each identifying it with 
the trichomonad from the intestines, and explaining its different ap¬ 
pearance from that form as being due to the influence of different 
environmental conditions. Whether this is a sufficient explanation of 
the morphological differences presented by the mouth and intestinal 
forms is, in the writer’s opinion, rather doubtful. The great variety 
of shape exhibited by the mouth form, as compared with the fairly 
constant oval or pyriform shape of the intestinal form, is one point of 
difference. 
Again, in the mouth form, the undulating membrane is no stouter 
than the anterior flagella, and does not terminate in a free posterior 
flagellum, nor is the basal chromatinic rod connected with it well de¬ 
veloped, whereas, in the intestinal form the undulating membrane is 
stouter than the anterior flagella, and there is a posterior flagellum and 
a well-developed basal rod. 
The nucleus also and the axostyle, in the two forms, present further 
points of difference. In the mouth form, the nucleus seems to stain 
rather diffusely, and distinct chromatin granules are very rarely dis¬ 
cernible, whereas, in the figures of the intestinal form chromatin 
granules are shown. The axostyle in the mouth form stains rather 
darker than the cytoplasm whilst in the intestinal form it appears as 
a clear refractile bar, according to Wenyon (1915). 
Unfortunately, it has not been found possible to make a careful 
comparison of the mouth form described above with good examples of 
the inte^^tinal form. The latter was obtained in faeces smears on one 
occasion, but the majority of the organisms present were in a degenerate 
condition; some of them showing in life the production of small lateral 
pseudopodia, characteristic of the dying condition. The few that were 
