418 
Types of Ascaris 
Museum Catalogue of Entozoa lie has entered it in MS. as “ Ascaris 
(? Ascaridia) Salvini .” In view of the bad state of preservation of the 
specimen, it is now impossible to express an opinion as to the probability 
of its belonging to the genus Ascaridia, which would place it among the 
Heterakidae, as distinct from the Ascaridae. 
“Ascaris unduloso-striata” Baird 
[= Heterakis vesicular is (Frolich)]. 
Ascaris unduloso-striata Baird, 1862, p. 113. 
„ „ Orley, 1882, p. 310. 
,, noduloso-striata Stossich, 1896, p. 73 
[doubtless a misprint for unduloso-striata]. 
A bottle bearing the label “ Ascaris unduloso-striata Baird. Ex 
intestinis Sarcorhamphi pupae ” contains thirteen small nematodes 
showing the usual characters, not of Ascaris, but of Heterakis. A careful 
re-examination of these specimens shows quite conclusively that they 
are identical with Heterakis vesicularis (Frolich, 1791), the type-species 
of the genus. This species, as is well known, is common in Gallinaceous 
birds, including the domestic fowl, common pheasant and partridge. 
It has also been recorded occasionally in ducks. It inhabits the large 
intestine, and more especially the caeca, of its hosts. Its presence in 
Sarcorhamphus may be the result of an “accidental infection.” 
A careful comparison of Baird’s specimens from the King Vulture 
with examples of II. vesicularis from a domestic fowl shows that they 
agree very closely in all respects. The tail of the male has a similar 
preanal chitinous ring, and the papillae agree precisely in size, number 
and arrangement. In the female the size and shape of the eggs, the 
thickness of the egg-shells, and the position of the vulva correspond 
exactly in both cases; while in both sexes Baird’s specimens conform 
to the undoubted H. vesicularis in the shape and dimensions of the 
oesophagus and its posterior bulb, and in the general arrangement of 
the internal organs. I have no hesitation, therefore, in concluding that 
these specimens from Sarcorhamphus papa belong to that species, in 
spite of the lack of close relationship between the hosts. There is 
nothing in Baird’s brief description to contradict the present re-deter¬ 
mination, and although he does not appear to have seen the preanal 
sucker-like ring in the male, which at once suggests Heterakis, there 
seems to be no doubt that these specimens constitute the types of his 
“species,” the name of which must therefore lapse. 
