A revision of the adult cestodes of cattle, sheep and allied animals ... / by C.W. Stiles ... and Albert Hassall.
- Charles Wardell Stiles
- Date:
- 1893
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: A revision of the adult cestodes of cattle, sheep and allied animals ... / by C.W. Stiles ... and Albert Hassall. Source: Wellcome Collection.
75/174
![(11) * Taenia marmotee Frohlich, 1802. [Plato YII, Figs. 6, 7.] Synonymy.—T. marmotee Frohlich, 1802; Moniezia mar mo la: (F., 1802) R. Bl., 1891. Host.—Arctomys marmota. This species is introduced in this place for comparison, although it does not occur in cattle or sheep, because it is an important species to consider in connection with the genera Moniezia and Thysanosoma. Thanks to the kindness of Prof. R. Blanchard, I have been able to examine several specimens of T. marmotee. In the anatomy (Plate vn, Pigs. 0, 7) of this species it is important to note that twTo pores are present in each segment. There are also two ovaries, two vitellogene glands, but only one uterus. This uterus is, however, totally different from that of Thysanosoma, for the branches or egg-sacs are not surrounded by the heavy layer of fibrinous tissue which is so characteristic of that genus. Furthermore, the eggs, according to Blanchard, are exactly like those of Dipylidium latissi- mum Riehm (T. Goezei Baird—M.Goezei (B) R. Bl.). In other words, the pyriform apparatus is well developed, which character does not agree with the genus Thysanosoma. Iii T. marmotee the topography of the longitudinal canals differs both from that of Moniezia and that of Thysanosoma, for the dorsal canal lies lateral of the ventral canal, and both of the canals as well as the nerve cross the genital canals ventrally, this latter character agreeing with Moniezia, but differing from Thysanosoma. These characters seem to furnish sufficient grounds for separating the species Teenia marmotee from the genus Moniezia, and for not placing it with the genus Thysetnosoma. It certainly can not be united with such forms as T. solium, etc., on account of the transverse uterus, double pores, pyriform body, etc. It would also be impossible to place it in the genus Dipylidium, for it differs very greatly from D. caninum (T. cucumerina R.), which forms the type of that genus. The differ- ences in the uterus, egg-balls, and rostellum are certainly sufficient grounds for not placing T. marmotee in the same genus with D. caninum. Should a new genus be established for this worm, as must undoubt- edly be done, the generic diagnosis would read: Head without hooks; segments broader than long. Each segment possesses two lateral genital pores; two ovaries and two vitellogene glands in the lateral portion of the median field; one transverse uterus with simple longitudinal branches. Dorsal canal between nerve and ventral canal; genital canals pass dorsally of longitudinal canals and nerve. Calcareous bodies absent from parenchyma. Eggs with well developed pyriform body. Blanchard has already separated Riehm’s species Dipylidium Leuck- arti, D. latissiMum, and I). pectinatum from the genus Dipylidium, and has placed them in the genus Moniezia, as M. Leuckarti, M. Goezei, and M.pectinata. The writer is in entire accord with Blanchard in the * Type.?—-Typical specimens with Drs. R. Blanchard, of Paris, and C. W. Stiles, of Washington, D. C.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b28122604_0075.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
