Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T01:31:27.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Types of the Species of Ascaris described by Baird

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

H. A. Baylis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eight forms, referred to the genus Ascaris, were described by Dr W. Baird between 1853 and 1868, all of which are represented by type-specimens in the British Museum collection. Stossich, in his monograph of the genus Ascaris (1896), mentions six of them, but all these are regarded by him as species inquirendae. Baird's descriptions are in all cases brief, and confined almost entirely to external features, this rendering them inadequate for the requirements of present-day systematic workers. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to undertake a revision of the various types, with a view to deciding more definitely their systematic value, and, where possible, to re-describe those which appeared to me to represent valid species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , June 1916 , pp. 411 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1916

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Parasitology, Vol. vlii. No. 3, p. 360.Google Scholar

1 Baird's second description of this form is a repetition of his original diagnosis, with some transpositions and slight verbal changes. Örley apparently accepts the species, but gives no description.Google Scholar

2 Diesing (1861, p. 662) says of this and the following form: “licet corporis proportionibus ab Ascaride megalocephala differanl, tamen forma labiorum ita ad earn accedunt, ut haecce tres species facile subdivisionem generis Ascaridis propriam constituere virteantur.”Google Scholar

1 As in the case of “A. laevissima,” Baird's second description is a repetition of his original diagnosis, with slight changes in order and wording. Örley includes the name in his list of species, without description or comment.Google Scholar

2 See footnote to preceding form.Google Scholar

3 Some smaller specimens in the same bottle prove to belong to a species of Tanqua.Google Scholar