No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2009
In January, 1921, I published in Parasitology (Vol. xn. No. 4, p. 337) a brief description of what appeared and still appears to me to be a new species of Porocephalus, and I commented upon the fact that this species exhibited “the most marked form of sexual dimorphism yet discovered in the Linguatulidae” and is therefore of some interest. Two writers have recently questioned the validity of this new species. Alcock1 suggests the possibility of my female specimen of Porocephalus pomeroyi being an individual abnormality, and Sambon2 unhesitatingly decides that its peculiar form is merely due to “constriction” and deformity, and records the species as a synonym of his “Armillifer annulatus” —the Pentastoma (Porocephalus) annulatum of Baird, 1853.
1 Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Vol. XVIII. No. 1, July 1921, p. 30.Google Scholar
2 Journ. Trap. Med. Hyg: Vol. XXV. No. 12, June 1922, p. 203.Google Scholar
T. cit. p. 201.
1 The thin-walled, largely-hollow, prosoma is very liable to artificial distortion. Thus, when I cleared the type-specimen in creosote the prosoma lost its “plump” outline and became much crumpled.
2 Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Pt XXI. 1853, p.32.Google Scholar
3 Ibid. Pt XXV. 1857, p. 115.
4 Arch. de Parasitol. T. 1, No. 1, 1898, p. 52.Google Scholar
5 Loc. cit.
1 T. cit. Fig. a on p. 201