Harring & Myers-—Rotifer Fauna of Wisconsin — 11. 495 
/ Diglena inflata Glasscott, Proe. Eoyal Dublin Soc., new ser., vol. 8, 1893, 
p. 60, pi. 4, fig. 6. 
Biaschiza megalocephala Eousselet, Journ. Quekett Micr. Club, ser. 2, vol. 6, 
1895, p. 123, pi. 7, fig. 5.— Dixon-Nuttall and Freeman, Journ. Eoyal 
Micr. Soc., 1903, p. 139, pi. 4, fig. 14.— Voigt, Forschungsber. Biol. Stat. 
Plon, vol. 11, 1904, p. 65.— Sachse, Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands, pt. 14, 
1912, p. 123, figs. 240-242.— Jakubski, Eozpr. Wiad. Muz. Dzieduszyckich, 
vol. 1, No. 3-4, p. 21.— Hauer, Mitt. Bad. Landesver. Naturk., Freiburg i. 
Br., new ser., vol. 1, 1921, p. 179. 
The body is fairly stout and gibbous dorsally. The head is very 
large and extremely oblique. The neck is not strongly marked. 
The abdomen increases considerably in width for about two thirds 
of its length and from this point the dorsal line curves rapidly to 
the base of the foot. The lorica is very thin and flexible and the 
edges of the plates ill-defined; the lateral clefts are narrow and 
parallel-sided. The presence of a dorsal cleft is denied by Dixon- 
Nuttall and Freeman; according to Hauer it is really present, but 
the connecting portion of the integument is convex instead of 
forming a deep groove, as in other species of this genus. The foot 
is stout and conical, but its base is ill-defined; the knoblike tail is 
near mid-length. The toes are short, stout and decurved, tapering 
gradually to acute points; their length is about one sixth of the 
total length. The foot glands are large and pyriform. 
The corona is extremely oblique, very slightly convex and with¬ 
out projecting lips. 
The mastax is large and differs very little from the typical form, 
except in the feeble development of the mallei. 
The ganglion is very elongate and saccate; eyespot and retro- 
cerebral organ are absent. 
Total length 195-210 jr ; toes 34-38/x; trophi 30jLt. 
Cephalodella megalocephala is very widely distributed, if not cos¬ 
mopolitan; it is common in weedy ponds wherever we have col¬ 
lected. Dixon-Nuttall and Freeman included this species in the 
genus Diaschiza under protest; this was not unreasonable under 
their somewhat narrow and artificial definition of this genus. No 
objection can be raised against its inclusion in Cephalodella^ if 
the definition given above is accepted for this genus, basing it pri¬ 
marily on the form of the corona and the mastax, secondarily on 
the form of the head, body and foot, and neglecting the degree of 
development of the lorica, even its total absence, as well as the 
