W. Nicoll 
379 
however, does not include the names of many able contributors whose work 
will be referred to later. 
In referring to Faust’s review I am struck with the fact that he makes no 
mention of such names as Hall, Fulleborn, Baylis, Clayton Lane, Deve and 
Fibiger, while including the names of others whose claims even to be re¬ 
garded as helminthologists are, to say the least, obscure. We may take it, 
however, that this is, as may be, a matter of opinion. 
There can be np doubt that during the past ten years America has drawn 
well ahead of all other countries, with the possible exception of Britain, in the 
matter of helminthological work. This might be attributed to some extent to 
the war which did not upset American economic conditions so seriously as it 
did those of Europe. Another reason perhaps is that, helminthologically 
speaking, America is a new and largely untouched terrain. Its great faunistic 
wealth implies a correspondingly great variety of helminth forms. The chief 
reason, however, is that Americans have been the first to realize to the full 
the great importance of helminthology in veterinary medicine and agriculture. 
The work of Hall and of Ransom, for instance, has been devoted essentially 
to this side of the subject. Another department in which Americans have 
taken a foremost place is that of bibliography, in which connection the names 
of Stiles and Hassall are outstanding. It is somewhat gratifying to find that 
the subject of veterinary helminthology has begun to receive a little more of 
the attention which it greatly needs in this country and the colonies. It has, 
of course, for some time held a fairly prominent position in Australia thanks 
largely to the occurrence there of worm nodule disease in cattle but even 
there it has not to any great extent been organized as it properly should be. 
In view of their great prevalence and economic importance it is not sur¬ 
prising that Nematode parasites have received considerably more attention 
than any other group of parasitic worms. In consequence, we find that such 
men as Seurat, Hall, Fulleborn, Baylis, Leiper, Railliet and Henry have 
devoted the greater part of their attention to this group. Cestodes have been 
dealt with most extensively by Beddard, Harvey Johnston, Hall and Skrjabin, 
while the chief work on Trematodes has been done by Cort, Faust, Yoshida, 
Leiper, S. J. Johnston and myself. 
The bulk of zoological literature relating to parasitic worms deals naturally 
with structure and classification. The elaboration of means of accurate 
identification and ready classification is one of the primary objects of all 
zoological work. Neglect of this has led in the past to a certain amount of 
confusion in experimental investigation. The identification of adult forms is 
in the main a comparatively easy task. The identification, however, of larval 
forms, particularly of many Nematodes, is much more difficult. On that account 
reliable work on larval structure and development is of the utmost importance, 
especially from the point of view of preventive medicine. It is only when the 
salient features of the life-histories of these parasites are accurately known 
that we can hope to attain administrative control over the diseases to which 
