F. J. Meggitt 
199 
gewebe,” suckers sunk in pockets, not on the surface of the scolex; greater 
extension internally of the ventral excretory system, the greater development 
of medullary parenchyma and of parenchymatous muscles; the greater length 
of the terminal proglottides; the restriction of the testes to the more posterior 
portion of the proglottis; and the position of the female organs median to the 
excretory system. I am in entire agreement with Beddard’s criticism of this 
(1912, p. 606): the points mentioned are either trivial or not in accordance 
with the facts. 
There only remains the question of the formation of the egg-capsules. 
For 7. hyracis (p. 381), 7. interpositus (p. 386) and 7. setti (p. 388) v. -Janicki 
asserts that the eggs are first enclosed singly in capsules formed from the 
uterine walls and only secondarily in capsules formed of modified medullary 
parenchyma; after this, the primary capsule wall disintegrates—a process 
similar to that described by him for D. polycalceola (1902, 258). This account 
is borne out by Bischoff for 7. paronae (1913, 238) and 7. lopas (p. 244) and 
confirmed by the behaviour of the uterus in the species described at the com¬ 
mencement of the paper. On the other hand Beddard (1912, 587) asserts that 
in 7. capensis the uterus is never developed as a definite tube with a lumen 
and that therefore the egg-capsules can have no connection with it, and for 
Z. gambianum states (1911, 659): “ Gradually the cavity of the uterus appeared, 
as it were, to dry up and the eggs were found—to continue the simile— 
stranded in the tissue of the body.” Baylis again for Z. muricola states (1915, 
45): “ There seems to be no ground for supposing that the capsules in which 
the eggs are enclosed, whether they are to be regarded as £ parauterine organs 
or not, are derived from the uterus.” In his definition of Zschokkeella kuhr- 
mann states (1908, 40): “Uterus lost sich in Eikapseln auf,” but on turning 
to his description of the type species (1901, 761) he there says: “Der Uterus 
lost sich auf, wie dies fiir das Genus Linstowia characteristisch ist, und kommen 
die Eier ins Parenchyme eingebettet zu liegen”; and (1902, 140): "‘Uterus 
verliert seine Wandung bald und die Eier treten ins Parenchyme iiber.” (See 
also the quotation already given.) From these latter descriptions it does not 
appear that Fuhrmann wished to imply that the eggs are enclosed in capsules 
formed directly from the uterine walls, but that, on the contrary, they are 
deposited in the parenchyma and the capsules subsequently form around 
them, a process similar to that described by Beddard for 7. capensis and Z. 
gambianum and in direct contradiction to Janicki’s account of 7. hyracis , 7. 
interpositus and 7. setti. This point seems to allow of a distinction being drawn 
between the two genera and I would suggest that the generic diagnoses be 
altered into “Eggs at first enclosed singly in capsules with walls derived from 
the uterus and only secondarily in capsules with walls of modified paren¬ 
chyma” for Inermicapsifer and “Eggs enclosed singly, or in groups, in cap¬ 
sules in the formation of which the uterus has no part for Zschokkeella. I his 
would place definitely in Inermicapsifer the species 7. hyracis (Pallas 1767), 
7. setti v. Janicki 1910, 7. interpositus v. Janicki 1910, 7. lopas Bischoff 1912 
