The parasites of whales are excessively numerous. Unfortunately only
a few of the species have been carefully studied, and much confusion
necessarily exists as to the number of distinct forms. This statement
is especially applicable to the entozoal group, which comprises upwards
of a score of species. Probably Van Beneden has examined more of these
parasites than any one else, and what little is known respecting them is
for the most part due to his investigations. I have myself encountered
and described several new species--a circumstance which Prof. Van
Beneden appears to have altogether overlooked.
[Illustration: FIG. 67.--_Distoma lancea._ Original.]
Commencing with the flukes, the first species I notice is _Distoma
lancea_. The late C. M. Diesing’s description of this worm was based
upon specimens obtained by Natterer in Brazil. The worms were discovered
in the biliary ducts of a male dolphin dissected at Barra do Rio Negro
on 29th December, 1833. Natterer calls this cetacean the tacuschi, and
in a letter to Diesing names the species _Delphinus tacuschi_, in order
to distinguish it from the _D. amazonicus_ of Spix and Martius. Prof.
Flower has shown that Spix and Martius’s _D. amazonicus_ is referable to
the inia or Bolivian dolphin (_Inia Geoffroyi_). The views of Flower,
Natterer, and Diesing are thus far in agreement; and the geographical
position of Barra shows that Natterer’s dolphin could not be the inia,
since, as Blyth long ago remarked, this last named cetacean “inhabits
only the remote tributaries of the Amazon and the elevated lakes of
Peru.” Several other dolphins from Brazil have been described, one of
which Mr Gray named _Steno tacuxi_. I think that Gray’s cetacean answers
to the _Delphinus tacuschi_ of Natterer; but Prof. Flower is of opinion
that Gray’s species is an ordinary Delphinus. In this case it may,
he thinks, probably be referred either to the _D. fluviatilis_ or to
_D. pallidus_. Whichever view is correct, it is clear that Natterer’s
parasite was obtained from a fluviatile cetacean, and not from an
oceanic or even an estuary form. In Diesing’s original description it
is stated that Natterer found the _Distoma lancea_ “once only,” when
numerous examples were secured. To Dr Anderson I stand indebted for a
solitary specimen, which he procured from the short-snouted dolphin
(_Orcella brevirostris_, Owen). The obliging superintendent of the
Calcutta Museum obtained this Distoma on the 3rd of January, 1873.
He removed it from the duodenum, but it had probably escaped from
the liver. Be that as it may, I easily recognised the species by the
sinuosities of the margin of the body. Dr Anderson’s parasite does not
exhibit these marginal irregularities so distinctly and sharply as they
are shown in Diesing’s figures. Diesing remarks that the internal organs
may be seen through the transparent body. The uterine organs, crowded
with ova and of a purple color, are represented by him as branched
after the fashion of a raceme. The artist has been misled. The uterine
channel is not branched. Dr Anderson’s specimen showed two large oval
testes placed one above the other in the middle line, and rather higher
up than is usual with those distomes that have the organs presenting
this simple form. The ducts were not visible. The yelk-forming glands
were particularly well marked, consisting of two laterally-disposed
masses, the left gland extending higher up than its fellow. The
so-called yelk-cells or capsules were well seen. The oval-shaped eggs
were tolerably distinct, yielding a length of 1/750″ from pole to pole,
by about 1/900 in transverse diameter. The worm, when unrolled, did not
exceed 1/6″ at most, whereas some of Natterer’s specimens measured 1/2″
in length. The neck had lost that rounded character which Diesing called
skittle-shaped (_kegelförmige_). The ventral acetabulum is very nearly
twice as large as the oral sucker. Diesing represents the ventral sucker
as circular; but in Anderson’s specimen this organ was broadly oval.
[Illustration: FIG. 68.--_Distoma Campula._ Original.]
The next fluke I have to notice (_Distoma Campula_) is better known to
me. In the twenty-second volume of the ‘Linnean Society’s Transactions’
I first described this new fluke, having secured numerous examples from
the peripheral branches of the biliary ducts of a porpoise (_Phocæna
communis_). The apparently healthy cetacean was shot by Mr Jardine
Murray in the Firth of Forth, in April, 1855. I mention its condition
because the bile-ducts were found to be diseased in a way similar to
that ordinarily observed in cases of fluke-rot affecting sheep, cattle,
and other animals. In my MS. note-book I remarked: “The liver-ducts were
in several places thickened and knotted near the surface of the organ.
On opening these they were found to be loaded with small distomata.” It
was added that, so long as the flukes were alive, they displayed under
the microscope a “double and peculiar intestinal tube,” the skin being
clothed with spines arranged throughout with perfect regularity. When
the superficial ducts were dissected out they presented a distinctly
beaded appearance, the enlargements of the lumen being occupied by
flukes closely packed together. At least twenty were found in one spot.
One of these enlarged ducts is figured in my recent paper to the Linnean
Society (quoted below). The most striking feature connected with the
structure of _Distoma Campula_ is the twisted condition of the digestive
canals. They present a zigzag appearance, the lateral folds being so
sharp that they seem to constitute, as it were, a transition between the
ordinary simple intestinal tubes of a true _Distoma_ and the branched
tubes seen in _Fasciola_. This led me originally to place the worms in
a distinct genus (_Campula_). Perhaps there were no sufficient grounds
for this generic separation; but in all Dr Anderson’s specimens obtained
from the liver-ducts of the Gangetic dolphin more or less decomposition
of the contents of the intestinal tubes had occurred, consequently
the angular appearance of the folds is entirely lost. From the other
characters presented by the worms I believe that these flukes from
the Ganges are specifically identical with those originally obtained
from the porpoise of the Firth of Forth. For reasons elsewhere stated
at full length I have merged my genus Campula into that of Distoma.
Thus, _Campula oblonga_ is a synonym only. I cannot here treat of the
morphology of trematode organisation as it deserves; but in relation to
the question of transition-forms I may remark in passing that an extreme
degree of intestinal folding seems as if it must result in branching.
This, I think, would happen should any departure from the central
distome type be rendered necessary by the exigences of the creature.
At all events, the spirally-twisted and branched digestive organs
constitute different ways in which nature attains one and the same
end. I may add that this coiled condition of the tubes in _D. Campula_
is by no means unique, since I have seen it in other trematode forms,
as, for example, in my _D. compactum_ from the Indian ichneumon. Dr
Anderson’s specimens of _D. Campula_ furnish a good general view of the
reproductive organs. They show that the single, relatively narrow, and
unbranched uterine canal is of great length, and coiled upon itself in
a very tortuous manner. In this way the duct passes from side to side,
crossing the central line of the body at least a dozen times, whilst
every fold is likewise bent upon itself to such an extent as to increase
its length to at least four times that of the animal. In short, the
uterine folds may be described as passing from side to side, each
separate coil being twisted upon itself so as to form secondary coils.
In the fluke here drawn I have accurately represented every winding of
the duct, from its vaginal outlet above to its termination, where it
is joined by the ovarian and vitelligene ducts in the ordinary way.
Only the merest traces of these smaller channels were visible; but the
two oval testes were well defined, occupying a position somewhat lower
down than usual. There was a third organ, apparently the ovary. This
was less well defined, and situated higher up in the middle line. The
vitelligene glands occupied the usual position. The terminal cells or
capsules with their efferent ducts were well seen in several specimens.
The water-vascular system was constantly visible, or at least that part
of the main channel which expands into a large vesicle immediately above
the central point of the tail. At this part several of the specimens
ruptured. In all of the worms the lower end exhibited a sort of tail,
resulting from _post-mortem_ changes. None of the Edinburgh specimens
of Campula displayed either the slightest trace of this projection or
of the water-vessel connected with it. The uterine duct was filled
with eggs. Approximately, the ova gave a measurement of 1/1000″ from
pole to pole by 1/2100″ in breadth. Although in Anderson’s specimens
the integumentary spines had fallen off, they are still attached in
my original specimens from Edinburgh. The spines average 1/500″ in
length. With their shafts directed downwards they separately presented
the form of a long cone, the base of which was only 1/1000″ broad.
After describing the above-mentioned trematodes I received a letter
from Dr Anderson, in which he enclosed a sketch of a parasite taken
from the small intestine of another _Platanista_. The illustration
evidently represented a new species of cetacean fluke which I called
_Distoma Andersoni_, with the following diagnosis:--“Body oblong, smooth
externally, uniform in thickness, six times as long as broad; head with
lateral projections; ventral sucker large and prominent; neck much
constricted; tail evenly rounded off, blunt. Length 1/8″, breadth about
1/50″.” This worm, which was discovered by Anderson, in March, 1873,
is figured in my memoir communicated to the Linnean Society. Only one
parasite was found. The figure in question shows that in this species
the testes are globular and placed high up in the middle line of the
body. A small lobed gland immediately above the testes is probably the
ovary. The vitelligene glands are largely developed. In the year 1858
Van Beneden described a large fluke from the pike-whale (_Balænoptera
rostrata_). The specimens were from Eschricht’s collection and had
been removed from the liver. As some of the examples measured no less
than 80 millimètres, Van Beneden described them as “the largest known
distomes.” This is probably correct, but the great human fluke (_D.
crassum_) reaches 2-1/2″, and the giraffe’s fluke (_Fasciola gigantea_)
3 inches in length. The curator of the Australian Museum, at Sydney, Mr
Gerard Krefft, mentions a _Distoma_ which himself and Mr George Masters
obtained from _Delphinus Forsteri_. Not improbably it represents a
new species. Of the single-suckered flukes, Creplin in 1825 obtained
_Monostoma plicatum_ from the intestines and œsophagus of a northern
whale. This cetacean was obtained on the coast of the island of Rugen,
in the Baltic. It has been variously spoken of as _Balæna borealis_ or
_B. rostrata_, but by Van Beneden this cetacean is called _Balænoptera
musculus_. The flukes exceeded 1/4″ in length. Another species of
monostome (_M. delphini_) was vaguely indicated by Blainville as
occupying the cutaneous follicles of _Delphinus Dalei_, which cetacean
is a synonym of _Micropteron sowerbiensis_. The same worm is supposed
by Van Beneden to infest the bottle-head (_Hyperoodon butzkopf_),
and perhaps it was the same or a similar worm which Poelman found in
the flesh of _Lagenorhynchus Eschrichti_. By naturalists imperfectly
acquainted with helminths, the monostomes are apt to be confounded with
Cysticerci; nevertheless, these widely different types may coexist in
the same host. The presence of larval cestodes has been indicated in
various whales. Thus, F. Cuvier and Van Beneden state that Surgeon-Major
Carnot, in 1822, found an enormous quantity of small hydatids in the
nasal sinuses of a porpoise (_Phocæna compressicaudata_). These are
supposed to be Cysticerci. In like manner Mr F. D. Bennett, in 1837,
obtained numerous capsuled Cysticerci from the skin and blubber of
_Catodon_ (_Physeter_) _macrocephalus_. It is unfortunate that so few
of the cetacean helminths find their way into the hands of persons
competent to decide upon their true character.
[Illustration: FIG. 69.--_Diphyllobothrium stemmacephalum_. _a_, Head,
neck and upper part of the strobile; _b_, front, and, _c_, profile views
of the head. Enlarged. Original.]
Mr Bennett’s “find” was originally stated to have been made in _Balæna
mysticetus_, but Van Beneden refers it to the northern sperm-whale or
blunt-headed cachalot. The naturalist Bosc noticed a larval cestode
found in the fatty tissues surrounding the reproductive organs of
_Delphinus delphis_. He called it an hydatid (_Hydatis_), and Rudolphi
placed it with the Cysticerci (_C. delphini_). According to Van Beneden
the parasite in question is probably a sexually-immature example of the
_Phyllobothrium delphini_ described by his son. Edouard Van Beneden
found this scolex in great abundance in a dolphin (_Delphinus delphis_),
which he dissected at Concarneau in 1868. The sexually-mature state of
this worm is, as the Belgian _savans_ remark, to be looked for in some
one or other of the larger sharks. The _Phyllobothrium_ has also been
found in the black fish, tursio, or high-finned cachalot (_Physeter
tursio_). M. Gerrard Krefft has described a cestode from the stomach of
a dolphin (_Delphinus Forsteri_), which he terms _Tænia Forsteri_. The
strobile only measured 2-1/2″ in length. It is just possible that the
worm may be identical with the species found by Schott. Unfortunately
M. Krefft did not find any ova, and his figures do not indicate the
position of the reproductive pores, if, indeed, they were present. In
this place, therefore, it is fitting to remark that, under the name
of _Tetrabothrium triangulare_, Diesing has furnished the diagnosis
of a small cestode found by Schott in _Delphinus rostratus_ off the
coast of Portugal. The strobile measured only two or three inches in
length, and showed a uniserial disposition of the reproductive pores.
Remarking on this species Van Beneden has stated that this is the only
sexually-mature tapeworm hitherto encountered in the intestines of
the cetacea. This observation, made in 1870, is somewhat unfortunate,
because I had already, in the year 1855, described a very large and
mature form of cestode (_Diphyllobothrium stemmacephalum_) from the
common porpoise (_Delphinus phocæna_). As stated by me to the Linnean
Society in December, 1857, the small intestine of this porpoise was
completely choked for the space of eight or nine feet by fine tapeworms
so closely packed together that the gut presented the appearance of a
solid cylinder. The same porpoise yielded the flukes already described
(_D. Campula_). As afterwards remarked in my treatise on the ‘Entozoa’
(1864), four of the tapeworms measured, respectively, from 7′ to 10′
in length, the fifth example being relatively small (18″ only). For
a full description of the worm I must refer either to the Linnean
‘Transactions’ or to my introductory volume whence the figures here
given are taken. Five of the finest examples of this remarkable cestode
have been added to the small collection of entozoa which I prepared for
the Museum of the Middlesex Hospital Medical College. The head of this
large cestode is excessively minute. The same cetacean host not only
yielded these new cestodes and flukes, but also great numbers of the
well-known strongyloid lung-worms, called _Prosthecosacter inflexus_
and _P. convolutus_. Another species (_P. minor_ or _Pharurus minor_)
also infests the porpoise, and a fourth (_P. alatus_) the narwhal. As I
have elsewhere observed (‘Entozoa,’ p. 91), the three first mentioned
forms are readily distinguishable from each other by their relative
size and length, and also more especially by the form of the tail. The
females of _P. inflexus_ attain a length of nine inches, and those of
_P. convolutus_ may be upwards of 1-1/2″ in length, whilst those of
_P. minor_ do not exceed an inch. The species described by Leuckart,
from _Monodon monoceros_, is only half an inch long. All the forms
infesting the porpoise were met with by Professor Quekett, and one of
them has been carefully anatomised by Professor Busk. Probably several
other species will be discovered when the lungs and cranial sinuses of
the larger cetacea are carefully examined for this purpose. The form
(_P. convolutus_) here represented is the least known of the three
infesting the porpoise. This species has been dissected by Kuhn and
Eschricht, whilst the other species have not only been examined by
these authors, but also by Raspail, Dujardin, Von Siebold, Van Beneden,
Leidy, and several other helminthologists. Some of Professor Busk’s
examples of the male worm (_P. convolutus_) were fully fifteen lines
long, yet, from the condition of the internal reproductive organs, he
was led to believe that they were not quite fully grown. I cannot here
repeat the anatomical details given in my former work, but I may add
that all the species of this genus reproduce viviparously. If the worms
are examined in the fresh state the young may occasionally be seen
escaping by the vagina. Professor Van Beneden noticed this phenomenon in
_Prosthecosacter inflexus_, and the same thing was observed by Busk in
_P. convolutus_. In the instance here drawn (Fig. 71) one of the embryos
is in the act of emerging, its caudal extremity being still lodged
within the vulva of the parent. In the fresh worm one may also see,
under the magnifying glass, numerous young worms coiled together within
the oviduct; the last-named organ widening out into a capacious sac at
a little distance above the end of the tail. The embryos measure about
1/300″ by 1/5000″ in breadth. Higher up, within the uterine and ovarian
ducts, the ova may be seen in all stages of development, according to
the particular region of the tube under examination. In their full-grown
condition the eggs have a longitudinal diameter of 1/1100″ by a
transverse measurement of about 1/1700″.
[Illustration: FIG. 70.--Tail of the male _Prosthecosacter convolutus_.
Highly magnified. After Busk.]
[Illustration: FIG. 71.--Tail of the female _Prosthecosacter convolutus_
(magnified 60 diameters), with a section of the oviduct (magnified 220
diameters), and a separate embryo (magnified 350 diameters). After Busk.]
As regards the development and migrations of the young worms, it is
highly probable that the embryos enter the bodies of various fishes
before they have acquired sexual maturity. Thence they will be
passively transferred to the stomachs of cetacea, whence they bore their
way through the tissues to the bronchi and pulmonary vessels. Though
usually found in these situations they also infest the cranial sinuses.
_Prosthecosacter minor_ is frequently lodged within the cavity of the
tympanum. Professor Quekett and myself, working independently, found
examples of _P. inflexus_ occupying the chambers of the heart. Under
the name of _Filaria inflexicaudata_, Prof. Von Siebold has described
yet another pulmonary nematode from the porpoise. It occupied cysts
in the lung. Like the strongyloids above mentioned, the females are
viviparous, but the males are destitute of any caudal hood. In the
whale (_Balænoptera_) killed off the isle of Rugen, and already alluded
to, M. Rosenthal obtained a large number of Filariæ (_F. crassicauda_,
Creplin). To employ Dujardin’s words the worms were situated “dans les
corps caverneux du pénis d’une _Balæna rostrata_.” The males and females
measured respectively 6-1/2 and 13 inches in length. Several forms of
ascarides are known to infest cetaceans. The species called _Ascaris
simplex_ by Rudolphi was originally procured from the œsophagus and
stomach of the dolphin of the Ganges and afterwards by Albers from the
common porpoise. According to Diesing the worms obtained by Dussumier
from a dolphin, taken off the Maldive Islands, must be referred to
the same species, but Van Beneden maintains that Dussumier’s “find”
refers to a distinct species, which he calls _Ascaris Dussumierii_. To
this view I cannot see any objection, but I think that Van Beneden’s
retention of Lebeck’s _Ascaris delphini_ as distinct from _A. simplex_
is untenable. Speaking of examples of this entozoon received from
Calcutta, I have remarked in the ‘Zoological Society’s Proceedings’
that Dr John Anderson’s collection of parasites showed four specimens
of this species. The worms had been obtained from the intestines of
_Platanista gangetica_. Singular to say, all the examples were of the
female sex, the two largest measuring about 1-3/8″ from head to tail.
The smaller worms did not exceed one inch in length. In connection with
these specimens (all of which were carefully examined by me on the
28th of September, 1875) I have only to add that they presented the
peculiarly flexed state of the chylous intestine described by Dujardin.
As that helminthologist had accurately surmised, the _Ascaris delphini_
of Rudolphi must be regarded as identical with this species. It is
impossible to say how many distinct species of cetacean lumbricoid worms
exist. Messrs Krefft and Masters found a species of _Ascaris_ infesting
a _Delphinus Forsteri_ taken off Sidney, New South Wales. Creplin also,
in 1851, described a species (_A. angulivalvis_) from the intestines
of _Balæna rostrata_. The males are less than three inches long, the
females measuring 3-1/2″. The late C. M. Diesing received from Prof.
Steenstrup a notice of some nematodes taken from a narwhal (_Monodon
monoceros_), which appeared to the Vienna authority to be scarcely
different from Creplin’s worm. Under the title _Conocephalus typicus_
Diesing has both figured and described a remarkable nematode, two
inches in length, which possesses the power of retracting its conical,
or, rather, mushroom-shaped head within the body, somewhat after the
manner of certain Echinorhynchi. His description is based upon museum
specimens that were obtained from the stomach of a dolphin (probably
_Delphinus delphis_) captured in the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to
the above nematodes some few others remain to be mentioned. Thus, the
_Peritrachelius insignis_ of Diesing was obtained by Natterer from the
stomach of _Delphinus amazonicus_ (Spix and Martius). The largest males
measured 3-1/2″ and the females 5-1/2″.
Another singular parasite, named by its discoverer, Roussel de Vauzème,
_Odontobius ceti_, was found by him in the mucus covering the bristles
(_fanons_) of _Balæna australis_. The separate worms measured about
1/5″ in length only, but they occurred in very great numbers. Lastly,
Van Beneden points to certain filiform worms found by Pallas in the
cavity of the ear of _Beluga leucas_ as probably representing another
distinct species of nematode, which he designates _Strongylus Pallasii_.
I suspect, however, they will only have been fine specimens of
_Prosthecosacter minor_. Be that as it may, it is as well to be reminded
that Albers and Mehlis, and also Klein, Camper, and Rosenthal, found _P.
minor_ within the tympanic cavity of the common porpoise. When looking
into the Museum stores of the Royal College of Surgeons, I found many
choice examples of the genus _Prosthecosacter_. Some few were evidently
Hunterian, but others had been separately contributed by Professors Owen
and Quekett.
The acanthocephalous entozoa are well represented in whales. One
of the commonest species is _Echinorhynchus porrigens_, of which I
possess specimens given me by Prof. Goodsir, who procured them from a
_Balænoptera rostrata_, captured in the Firth of Forth. The Hunterian
Collection contains examples of this worm, recorded as having been
obtained from _Balæna mysticetus_; and also several Echinorhynchi from
the pike-whale. Professor Owen regards these last-named entozoa as
distinct (_E. balanocephalus_, Owen). Probably Hunter’s whale-worms,
which resembled _E. filicollis_ of the eider duck, and which Van Beneden
has characterised as representing a distinct species (_E. mysticeti_),
were examples of _E. porrigens_. The specimens set up by me for the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons were all of Hunterian origin.
The whole subject of cetacean Echinorhynchi requires revision, and
would well repay special investigation. The small, oval-shaped entozoa
found by Murie in a whale which Van Beneden refers to _Balænoptera
musculus_ were probably examples of a distinct species of this genus
(_E. Muriei_). The Vienna helminthologist has described a small species
(_E. turbinella_) obtained by Hyrtl from _Hyperoodon butzkopf_. The male
worms measured 1/2″ in length. Another small species (_F. pellucidus_)
was discovered by Leuckart in the intestines of _Delphinus delphis_,
the males measuring less than 1/4″, and the females about 1/2 an inch.
Lastly, under the name of _Echinorhynchus brevicollis_, Van Beneden has
indicated another species found by Malm in the intestines of a curious
whale (_Balænoptera Sibbaldii_) captured alive off the coast of Sweden.
The Louvain _savant_ refers to the “take” of another example of this
rare whale in the Firth of Forth about the same period. A good many
whales have been captured of late years off our English and Scottish
coasts, but, unfortunately, very little effort has been made to collect
the numerous entozoa which they undoubtedly will have contained.
The external parasites and fellow-boarders or messmates of Cetacea
are almost as numerous as helminths. In this work, however, little
account can be taken of them. Every naturalist is familiar with the
common _Cyamus balænarum_, and voyagers tell us that the whales are
sometimes so densely covered by these lice that they impart to the
skin a white color, and so enable the fishermen to see their victims
at a great distance. The _Cyami_ and _Caprellæ_ are closely allied
forms of læmodipodous crustaceans. Professor Lütken, of Copenhagen, has
enumerated about a dozen distinct species of _Cyami_ which are parasitic
upon whales. Some of the _Pycnogonidæ_ are said to attach themselves
to whales. In their young state they are known to be parasitic upon
polyps. I obtained specimens of these in 1856. The barnacles found on
whales are genuine messmates; when once they have attached themselves
to the skin, they remain permanently fixed. Like the _Cyami_ or true
whale-lice, these parasitic cirrhipeds are so numerous that almost
every cetacean host may be said to carry its own species of louse and
its own species of barnacle. The classification of these creatures is
an admitted difficulty, even amongst skilled crustaceologists. The
genera of cirrhipeds that are parasitic upon whales chiefly belong to
the genera _Coronula_, _Diadema_, _Tubicinella_, and _Conchoderma_,
but in addition to these, many lernæans of the genera _Penella_ and
_Lerneonema_ are found on whales, and also, according to Van Beneden,
at least one species of _Acarus_. This mite (_Acaridina balænarum_, Van
Beneden) is found on _Balæna australis_. Here I must stop. The limits of
this work preclude my attempting a more extended notice or enumeration
of the crustacean and arachnidan parasites.
Notwithstanding the known differences existing between the phytophagous
manatee-dugong group and the true whales, the parasites of this
remarkable order of mammals (_Sirenia_) will be most conveniently
noticed in this place. Not much is known respecting them. A single
species of Amphistome (_A. fabaceum_) of the usual size has been
described and figured by Diesing from the cæcum and large intestine of
Natterer’s manatee (_Manatus exunguis_), the same mammal yielding a
rather peculiar nematode, _Heterocheilus tunicatus_. This worm possesses
a complicated set of cephalic lobes and oral papillæ, which at first
induced Diesing to call the genus _Lobocephalus_. These structures have
been fully described and figured in Diesing’s account of the anatomy of
the worm in the ‘Annals of the Vienna Museum.’ The males measure 1-1/4″
and the females up to 1-1/2″ in length. From the stomach of an Indian
dugong (_Halicore_) Rüppell and several other naturalists obtained
lumbricoid worms (_Ascaris halicoris_, Owen), the males of which
measured 2-1/4″ and the females from four to five inches in length.
Rüppell’s specimens were from the Red Sea and Owen’s from Penang.
From the now extinct _Rhytina Stelleri_ similar worms were obtained
by Steller, who called them _Lumbrici caudidi_. Following Brandt’s
nomenclature the species has since been recognised as _Ascaris rhytinæ_.
The worms measured half a foot in length, and occupied the stomach and
duodenum. They were obtained by Steller in July, 1742, the last of the
Rhytinas having been seen in 1768.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (No. 55).--_Baird_, “Entozoa of Cete,” ‘Brit. Mus.
Catalogue,’ Index, p. 120, 1853:--_Idem_, “_Ascaris halicoris_,”
in ‘Ann. Nat. Hist.,’ 1860, p. 329; see also “Description of a
rare Entozoon from the Stomach of the Dugong,” ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.,’
1859.--_Beneden, P. J. van_, “Les Cétacés, leurs commensaux et
leurs parasites,” ‘Bullet. de l’Acad. Royale de Belgique,’ p. 348,
1870.--_Idem_, ‘Animal Parasites,’ 1876.--_Beneden, E. van_, in
‘Comptes Rendus,’ 1868.--_Bennett, D._, in ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.,’ 1837, p.
30.--_Brandt_, “_Asc. dugonis_ and _A. rhytinæ_,” in ‘Bull. P.-Math.
de l’Acad. Imp. des Sci. de St Peters,’ tom. v, p. 192.--_Cobbold_,
“Trematode Parasites from the Dolphins of the Ganges, _Platanista
gangetica_ and _Orcella brevirostris_,” ‘Linn. Soc. Journ.,’ Zool. Div.,
vol. xiii, p. 35, 1876.--_Idem_, “Entozoa of _Delphinus phocæna_,”
‘Linn. Soc. Trans.,’ vol. xvii, p. 167, 1858.--_Idem_, “Descript. of
_Asc. Andersoni_,” in ‘Notes on Entozoa,’ part iv, in ‘Proc. Zool.
Soc.,’ March, 1876, p. 296.--_Idem_, ‘Catalogue of the Specimens of
Entozoa in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons (Preps. Nos.
39-43 and 98-101),’ 1866; see also Owen, for an account of the Hunterian
specimens of Echinorhynchi.--_Creplin, F. C. H._, “Note on a Filaria and
a Monostoma from a Whale (_Balæna rostrata_),” from ‘Nova Acta Acad. N.
C.,’ xiv, in ‘Zool. Journ.,’ 1832-34, vol. v, p. 381; and in ‘Ersch. and
Grube’s Encyclop.,’ 1846, s. 172.--_Idem_, “On _Asc. angulivalvis_,” in
‘Wiegmann’s Archiv,’ 1851, s. 158.--_Diesing_, “On _Heterocheilus_ and
_Amphist. fabaceum_,” in ‘Neue Gattungen von Binnenwürmen (u. s. w.),’
‘Annalen des Wiener Museums,’ 1839.--_Idem_, “Descr. of Conocephalus,”
in ‘Revision der Nematoden’ (1860), from ‘Sitzungsb. d. k. Akad. d. w.
math.-naturw.,’ 1861, s. 669.--_Dujardin_, ‘On Odontobius,’ l. c., p.
292.--_Idem_, ‘_Ech. porrigens_,’ p. 504.--_Idem_, ‘_Fil. crassicauda_,’
p. 50.--_Idem_, ‘Stenurus,’ p. 266.--_Idem_, ‘_Asc. simplex_,’ p.
220.--_Krefft_, “Parasites of Forster’s Dolphin,” in his ‘Australian
Entozoa,’ from ‘Trans. Etom. Soc. of New South Wales,’ Sydney,
1871.--_Lebeck_, “_Asc. delphini_” (quoted by Rudolphi), Synops., p.
296, from ‘Neue Schriften der Berl. Gesellsch. Naturf. Freunde,’ Bd.
iii, s. 282.--_Leuckart, R._, “On Pharurus,” in ‘Wiegmann’s Archiv,’
1848, s. 26.--_Murie_, in ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.,’ 1865, p. 213.--_Owen_,
“_Asc. halicoris_,” ‘Zool. Soc. Proc.,’ 1838, and in art. “Entoz.,”
‘Todd’s Cyclop.’--_Idem_, “On Echinorhynchi,” in his ‘Catal. of the
Contents of the Roy. Coll. Surg. Museum,’ part iv, fasc. i, p. 44; and
for the “External Parasites of Whales,” _ibid._, p. 74, 1830.--_Quekett,
J._, “On the Anatomy of four species of Entozoa,” abstract from ‘Proc.
of Micros. Soc.,’ in ‘Ann. of Nat. Hist.,’ vol. viii, 1842; also in
‘Micros. Journ. and Struct. Rec.,’ p. 125, and in the original series
of ‘Trans. of the Micros. Soc. of Lond.,’ vol. i, p. 44, 1844.--_Idem_,
in ‘Baird’s Brit. Mus. Catal. of Entoz.,’ p. 3, 1853.--_Roussel de
Vauzème_, “On Odontobius,” ‘Ann. des Sci. Nat.,’ 1834, p. 326, and
in ‘Isis,’ 1836.--_Rüppell_, “Entozoa Dugonis,” in ‘Abhandl. der
Senkenbergschen Museums,’ i, s. 106.--_Siebold, Von_, “On _Filaria
inflexicaudata_,” in ‘Wiegmann’s Archiv,’ 1842, s. 347.