280 
Intestinal Protozoa in Termites 
to the genus Dinenympha. Recently Zulueta (1915) has published a paper on 
“ Dinenympha gracilis ,” but the organism which he describes is clearly the 
same as that which Leidy called Pyrsonympha. 
In Leucotermes of both Japan proper and Formosa, forms belonging to 
this group are found in large numbers. They are so numerous that they far 
exceed the members of the preceding group in number. They present such 
remarkably diverse types of organization that it is clear they cannot be 
referred to one or two species, as has been done by previous authors in the 
case of the American and Italian forms. Some of our forms are of such peculiar 
organization that they are easily distinguishable from each other, but there 
are several which are not so readily distinguishable, and their classification 
demanded much time and work. I finally determined that they are to be 
referred to eight species—one of them doubtful. 
Previous authors do not seem to have been sufficiently accurate in classi¬ 
fying their species. The illustrations given by the American authors are more 
or less detailed; and they show clearly that several different forms, which 
undoubtedly present characteristics proper to distinct species, are included 
under a single specific name. It can be clearly recognized, moreover, that the 
forms referred by Porter (1897) to Dinenympha are of a different character 
from the original forms described under this name by Leidy. As for the works 
of Grassi (1911), Comes (1910, 1910 a, 1912), and Zulueta (1915), both their 
descriptions and illustrations are so incomplete that the identity of their 
forms with the others is hardly ascertainable. 
The classification of the organisms of this group described hitherto is thus 
in a very confused state; and this has puzzled me very much in the adoption 
of specific names. I have finally been compelled to call all the species occurring 
in the Japanese termites by new names. 
Our forms may be divided into two groups, which I think to represent 
the characteristics of Pyrsonympha and Dinenympha of Leidy. The differences 
found between these two groups, however, were not thought to be so distinct 
as to justify their reference to different genera: so I have marked the dis¬ 
tinction by classifying them as two subgenera of a single genus. Thus I 
agree with Grassi (1911) in the conception that Leidy’s two genera should 
be united into one, but I cannot concur with him in the adoption of the 
generic name. I propose to adopt Pyrsonympha , not Dinenympha , as the 
generic name, for the following reasons: the characters of the group are more 
typically and distinctly represented in Pyrsonympha than in Dinenympha , 
and the former name stands prior to the latter in the original description of 
Leidy (1877). I agree with Grassi (1911) that Lophophora Comes is a synonym: 
and I may point out that this name cannot be used in any case, as it is already 
preoccupied—having been proposed on at least two previous occasions for 
insects. 
