564 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXX, No. 6 
high as 1 : 5. That the variation here 
noted is due to the presence of large 
numbers of eggs is shown by a corre¬ 
sponding study of S. laryngeus Raill., 
where the uterine complex extends 
hardly farther behind the vulva than it 
does in front of it. 
Leiper has placed considerable em¬ 
phasis on the relation of the axis of 
the buccal capsule to that of the body 
of the worm, stating that the capsule 
is turned dorsally. In old pairs it is 
true that the mouth opening is di¬ 
rected dorsally, but in young worms the 
mouth is directed anteriorly. The cap¬ 
sule is at all times terminal; any 
changes in the relative directions of 
the axes is due to a flexure of the neck 
region. 
The teeth at the base of the buccal 
capsule have heretofore been described 
as eight in number but with no state¬ 
ment as to the relative sizes of the 
teeth. The normal form shows eight 
teeth, as follows: A large medium dor¬ 
sal tooth which may or may not show 
two cusps. On either side of this tooth 
there is a very small submedian dorsal 
tooth. There are two large (always 
unicuspid) lateral teeth, one on each 
side, and two large submedian ventral 
teeth, each adjacent and similar to a 
lateral tooth. The ventral tooth is the 
smallest of all. 
Occasionally there are nine instead of 
eight teeth, in which case the median 
dorsal is divided to form two teeth. 
The spicules of ten males selected at 
random from material taken from both 
turkey and fowl vary in length from 
57 ju to 64 At. It is probable that reports 
of 140 At spicules in this species refer to 
another species. 
Host.—Meleagris gallopavo, Gallus 
domesticus. 
Location. —Trachea. 
Geographic distribution .—North and 
South America, Europe, Africa, Aus¬ 
tralia. 
As Ransom has shown, the turkey 
should be considered the true host of 
this parasite. Chickens are readily 
susceptible to infection only when very 
young, and infection usually proves 
fatal. If the chicken survives the 
infection it loses its parasites within 
a short time, so that there is little 
opportunity for spread of infection 
from chickens. Available evidence in¬ 
dicates that in the absence of turkeys 
gapeworm infection is rare among 
chickens. Under these circumstances 
it would seem desirable to compare 
more carefully than appears to have 
been done specimens of gapeworms 
that have been collected from various 
species of birds other than the Galli- 
formes to determine whether they are 
really Syngamus trachea. 
Syngamus kingi Leiper (pi. 2, fig. 11, 
14, 17). 
Syngamus kingi Leiper, 1913, Trans. Soc. Trop. 
Med. & Hyg. [London] (1912-13), 6: 265-297. 
The material on which this species is 
based was collected from Homo sapiens 
in St. Lucia, West Indies. From 
Leiper’s description one may say 
definitely that the species is not 
S. laryngeus Raill., since the coils of 
the uterine complex reach to just in 
front of the anus; nor can it be S. 
trachea , for in that case the opening of 
the mouth capsule is turned dorsally 
instead of being terminal. The possi¬ 
bility that S. dispar and S. kingi are 
synonymous is not excluded. As has 
been pointed out, the transverse level 
of the month capsules in all species I 
have examined varies according to the 
age of the specimens, and the differ¬ 
entiation between S. kingi and S. 
dispar made by Leiper on the basis of 
this character accordingly seems open 
to question. 
Syngamus nasicola Linst. 
Syngamus nasicola Linst. 1899, Mitt. Zool. 
Samml. Mus. Naturk. 1 (2): 18. 
Male. —5.6 mm. in length, 0.47 mm. 
in thickness. Buccal capsule 320 g 
deep by 480 /x in breadth, with six ribs 
proceeding from the teeth on the 
internal wall. Esophagus ten forty- 
sixths of the body length. 
Female. —20.6 mm. long, 0.87 mm. 
thick. Esophagus one fifty-first (sic.) 
of the body length; tail one fifty-second 
of the body length and acutely conical. 
Vulva divides body as 3: 10. Eggs 88 
by 46 ix. 
Host.—Cervus rufus; Capra hircus. 
Habitat .—Posterior nares, nasal cav¬ 
ity. 
Geographical distribution .—Brazil 
(Rio Grande do Sul), Africa (Cam¬ 
eroon) . 
In the foregoing description, which 
contains all of the pertinent points 
mentioned in the original, there is only 
one point that serves to differentiate 
this species from Syngamus laryngeus. 
That point is the proportional dimen¬ 
sions of the buccal capsule of the male. 
If von Linstow was correct in saying 
that the capsule measured was that of 
the male, the capsule of the female 
should be very shallow and the two 
species are probably distinct. On the 
other hand, the figures cited are 
approximately those of the female 
capsule of S. laryngeus. The other 
