| OCR Text |
Show 1876.] DR. T. s. C O U B O L D O N E N T O Z O A . 203 label on the jar was in places well nigh obliterated, I made out that the worms had come from a Monkey ; but not being certain as to the species, I did not attempt the identification of the parasites. Dr. Murie has since further obliged me by looking up his notes ; and on the 2nd of April 1875, he informed me by letter that the host was a Pinche Monkey (Hapale cedipus). This well known Marmoset had been obtained from New Granada. The cause of the animal's death, which occurred at the Society's Gardens on or about the 30th of June, 1866, was not ascertained. I have not in this case observed any signs of inflammation in the intestine of the host, a portion of which, with several of the Entozoa remaining attached was also supplied to me. The mucous layer of the gut shows deep conical depressions at the spots where the detached worms had anchored themselves. So far as I can make out, Diesing's original description of the parasite is the only one that exists. I have gone over his numerous memoirs contributed to the Vienna Accademy, but can find nothing beyond the specific characters given in his ' Systema.' All the specimens in the Vienna Museum, whence his description is taken, were collected by Natterer. They were procured from the Marakina (Midas rosalia), from two other true Marmosets (Hapale ursulus and H. chrysoleucus), and from a Squirrel Monkey or Tee-tee ( Callithrix sciureus). Though in one or two unimportant particulars our observations do not agree, Diesing's description is amply sufficient for the sys-tematist's purpose. By referring to the four specimens which I have selected for illustration, it will be seen that all the worms were more or less bent upon themselves. The larger specimens present a tolerably uniform thickness throughout, the smaller ones being thicker behind and almost club-shaped (Plate XVI. fig. 1). In detached examples, the front end of the parasite is seen to support a narrow and long neck, which is usually well marked off from the body proper (d). It is more or less regularly annulated, the folds being continued downwards along the body, but gradually losing their regular arrangement. If the anterior extremity of the neck be examined with a powerful pocket lens, its abrupt and truncate surface will be seen to display a number of lines or grooves radiating from a common centre (fig. 2). During the perfect retraction of the proboscis the centre is represented by a clear space, or wide opening, which communicates with a cavity immediately beneath. The end of the neck thus forms a sort of collar, or rosette, made up of rays arranged like the spokes of a wheel. When the proboscis is exserted this collar is more or less convex, but it becomes slightly concave when the proboscis is retracted. Not improbably this attractive- looking surface suggested to Diesing the specific title which he gave to the worm. He recognized 24 rays: they probably vary from that number up to 28 ; at least, I counted 27 in the specimen (fig. 3). During exsertion, the proboscis forms, to the naked eye, a nipple-like projection (fig. 2). According to Diesing it supports three rows of hooks ; but I certainly saw four rows (fig. 4). When separately magnified these hooks present very different appearances |
