Issued October 10. 1910. 
 
 . S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. BULLETIN 125, PART 1. 
 
 A. IX MELVIN, CHIEF OP BUREAU. 
 
 GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES 
 9 ~~~ OF THE CESTODE GENUS MULTICEPS. 
 
 I. HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 BY 
 
 MAURICE C. HALL, 
 
 Junior Zoologist, Zoological Diri 
 
 
 L J E r : 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1910. 
 
 - N X
 
 THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 r.hi.f: A. D. MEL YIN. 
 
 Assistant Chief: A. M. FARRINGTON. 
 
 Cfiiif CJcrl-: CHARLES ('. CARROLL. 
 
 al Husbandry Division: GEORGE M. ROMMEL, chief. 
 Biocht.;iir ftirision: M. DORSET, chief. 
 Dairy D^qion: B. II . RAWL, chief. 
 Inspection Division: RICE P. STEDDOM, chief; MORRIS WOODEN, R. A. RAMSAY, and 
 
 ALBERT E. I' I; -ITXKE, associate chiefs. 
 Pathological Division: JOHN R. MOHLER, chief. 
 Quarcmli/tc ]>irisiori* RICHARD W. Jin KMAN, chief. 
 Zoological Division: B. H. RANSOM, chief. 
 
 iment Station: E. ( . SCHROEDER, superintendent. 
 Editor: JAMES M. PICKI 
 
 /.OOLOCICAI, DIVISION. 
 
 Cl/uf: I!. II. HANSOM. 
 
 AKX/xtflnl Zonlnfj'ixt: Al.HKRT .1 1.VSSA I.I.. 
 
 Junior Zoologists. HAHIIY \\'. (IHAYHII,!., M.-vruici-; ('. HALL, HOWARD <'KA\VI.I:Y, and 
 WINTHROP D. FOSTER.
 
 Issued October 10, 1910. 
 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. BULLETIN 125, PART 1. 
 
 A. D. MELVIN, CHIEF OF BUREAU. 
 
 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES 
 OF THE CESTODE GENUS MULTICEPS. 
 
 I. HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 BY 
 
 MAURICE C. HALL, 
 
 Junior Zoologist, Zoological Division. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1910.
 
 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 
 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, 
 Washington, D. C., June 16, 1910. 
 
 SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, and to recommend for 
 publication as a bulletin, the accompanying manuscript entitled 
 "The Gid Parasite and Allied Species of the Cestode Genus Multiceps. 
 Part 1. Historical review," by Maurice C. Hall, of the Zoological 
 Division of this Bureau. 
 
 Mr. Hall has been making a most comprehensive study of gid, and 
 his investigations will furnish an important contribution to our knowl- 
 edge of this deadly disease of sheep, which has only in recent years 
 been recognized as established in the United States, the first definite 
 evidence of its presence as an enzootic having been published in 1905 
 in Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 66. 
 
 It is intended to publish later, as succeeding parts of the present 
 bulletin, the results of Mr. Hall's investigations, now in progress, con- 
 cerning the morphology and life histories of the parasites in question, 
 as well as the symptomatology, treatment, prophylaxis, etc., of gid. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 A. D. MELVIN, 
 
 Chief of Bureau. 
 Hon. JAMES WILSON, 
 
 Secretary of Agriculture.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 I'age. 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 Multiceps multiceps 6 
 
 Historical sketch 6 
 
 Gid in the United States 16 
 
 Gid in Canada 29 
 
 The hosts and occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps 30 
 
 The occurrences of the adult Multiceps multiceps 41 
 
 Economic importance of gid 42 
 
 Alleged causes of gid 46 
 
 Names applied to gid and giddy animals 47 
 
 Common names of the gid parasite 49 
 
 Synonymy 50 
 
 Multiceps serialis 56 
 
 Historical sketch 56 
 
 The hosts and occurrences of the larval Multiceps serialis 58 
 
 The occurrences of the adult Multiceps serialis 03 
 
 Economic importance 64 
 
 Synonymy 65 
 
 Multiceps lemuris 66 
 
 Historical sketch 66 
 
 Synonymy 66 
 
 Multiceps polytubcrculosus 67 
 
 Historical sketch 67 
 
 Synonymy 67 
 
 Multiceps spalacis 67 
 
 Historical sketch 67 
 
 Synonymy 67 
 
 Cysticercus botryoidcs 68 
 
 Historical sketch 68 
 
 Synonymy 68 
 
 Acephalocystis ovis tragclaphi 68 
 
 Historical sketch 68 
 
 Synonymy 68 
 
 ILLUSTRATION. 
 
 FIG. 1. Map of Montana, showing distribution of gid in sheep.
 
 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES OF THE 
 CESTODE GENUS MULTICEPS. 
 
 PART I. HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Coenurus is the name commonly applied to a larval cestode group 
 of considerable importance to helminthologists from a historical and 
 scientific standpoint, for it was with one of its species, commonly 
 referred to as Cc&nurus cerebralis, that Steenstrup's theory of the 
 alternation of generations was first completely demonstrated for 
 cestodes by Kuchenmeister, who, in 1853, produced the adult cestode 
 or tapeworm in the primary host by feeding the larval form to the 
 dog, and produced the larval cestode or bladderworm in the secondary 
 host by feeding the eggs of the adult tapeworm to the sheep. This 
 work of Kuchenmeister's and that of Von Siebold along the same line 
 is taken by Braun (1894a), a in his classic work on cestodes, as marking 
 the beginning of the fourth and latest period in helminthology, dating 
 from 1851. 
 
 This same species, C. cerebralis, is of considerable economic interest 
 to veterinarians and stock raisers, and especially to sheepmen, as 
 being the cause of the disease commonly known among English- 
 speaking people as gid. 
 
 In spite of the fact that the disease caused by this parasite, as well 
 as something of its nature, was probably known in the fourth and 
 fifth centuries B. C., and that the parasite itself was observed at least 
 as early as 1634 A. D., its parasitic nature known since 1780, and its 
 life history known for over half a century, there are still some mistaken 
 popular ideas about it, and also some errors, disagreements, and uncer- 
 tainties in the writings of scientists as to the specific identity of this 
 and various other forms of coanurus that have been described from 
 different hosts, and also as to the correctness with which certain par- 
 
 a Bibliographic citations refer, wherever possible, to Stiles and Hassall's (1902-19 ) 
 Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology, Authors, Bureau of Animal Indus- 
 try Bulletin 39, United States Department of Agriculture. References not in Bul- 
 letin 39 are indicated by the use of Greek letters and will be covered in a supplemental 
 bibliography,, to be published later. 
 
 5
 
 6 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 asites are listed from certain hosts. The writer has endeavored to 
 correct some of these errors in this paper, and it is proposed in a series 
 of papers to give a comprehensive account of the cestodes having a 
 coenurus larva. 
 
 The first form to be considered is the brain bladderworm of sheep, 
 usually known as Cwnurus cerebralis, but which, as will be shown, 
 should be known by the name Multiceps multiceps, proposed here for 
 the first time. In this article the word " cosnurus " will not usually be 
 capitalized ; it will be used merely as the name of a larval stage, like 
 the words " cysticercus," "cercaria," "leptocephalus," etc. It is not 
 entitled to be used as a generic or subgeneric name, owing to the pri- 
 ority of Multiceps, but as it is still much more commonly used in this 
 way than Multiceps, and as reference must be constantly made to 
 quotations where it is used in combination with some specific name, 
 especially in the form Ccenurus cerebralis, it will often be clearer to 
 use this form instead of the correct one. 
 
 MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 Braun (1894a) makes his first period in helminthology cover the 
 work of antiquity and the middle ages up to 1600, and in the litera- 
 ture of this period, relatively barren from a scientific standpoint, 
 almost no references are to be found that can be construed as refer- 
 ring to gid. However, a disease like gid, involving, as it does, a deli- 
 cate arrangement of alternating hosts, must have existed long before 
 primitive man passed from the hunting to the pastoral stage. It is 
 not the sort of disease to arise by rapid facultative adjustment 
 or out-of-hand adaptation. The very fact that gid exists to-day is 
 proof enough in a disease of this sort that it existed thousands of 
 years ago. Undoubtedly, in the days when the ancestral dog pur- 
 sued the wild sheep, the nice adaptation of a brain parasite that would 
 interfere with muscular activity and blunt the sense perceptions, 
 making flight and escape difficult, must have furnished a striking 
 example of a life habit well calculated to perpetuate a parasite, but it 
 could scarcely have been more satisfactory than the new arrange- 
 ment introduced by man when he domesticated the sheep and put 
 its former enemy, the dog, in charge of it to run over its pastures 
 as a constant companion and to eat the discarded heads and diseased 
 brains of giddy sheep an enemy still. 
 
 A prolonged search of ancient literature would no doubt show some 
 references which might readily be taken as descriptions of gid. The 
 symptoms are so striking that pastoral peoples, like the Arabs, Jews, 
 and Greeks, must have noted and described them ; but finding such 
 references involves a tedious search and more lime than ran profitably 
 be spent on the work.
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 7 
 
 One such reference occurs in Kuhn's edition of Hippocrates 
 (1825), who is believed to have lived 460 to 375 B. C. The follow- 
 ing is quoted from Adams's translation of Hippocrates (1886or), 
 describing excess of fluids on the brain in epilepsy: 
 
 This you may ascertain in particular, from beasts of the flock [i. e. , sheep] which are 
 seized with this disease, and more especially goats, for they are most frequently 
 attacked with it. If you will cut open the head you will find the brain humid, full 
 of sweat, and having a bad smell. 
 
 It is, of course, impossible to make a positive statement of fact on 
 anything less than complete and accurate observations. Obvioush* 
 there was no one in the tune of Hippocrates who could be expected to 
 make and record such observations in a case of gid, and existing 
 editions of Hippocrates are open to the suspicion of having in them 
 observations not properly referable to Hippocrates. Hence we can 
 not say certainly that Hippocrates actually saw cases of gid, but on 
 the strength of the reference given, agreeing as it does with the 
 certainty that gid among sheep must have existed for ages, it is fair 
 to state that Hippocrates probably saw cases of gid four or five 
 centuries before the Christian era. The fact that the brain of sheep 
 was found full of fluid points, among other things, to hydrocephaly, 
 which may follow the invasion of the gid parasite, according to 
 Miiller (1877a), or to the gid parasite itself. Gid probably was not 
 rare in those days when sheep were everywhere tended by dogs and 
 the prophylaxis of the disease was undreamed of. The "bad smell" 
 may have been due to delay in post-mortem examination, to hydro- 
 cephalus purulentus as a sequel of gid, or it may easily have been 
 noted hi the ccenurus vesicle, as my own observations show that 
 the coenurus fluid serves as an excellent medium for decomposition 
 bacteria, the odor of the fluid in a graduate becoming intolerable in 
 twenty-four hours at ordinary room temperature. Guetebruch 
 (1766a), according to Kuchenmeister (1880a), states in an article 
 on gid that when perforation of the skull occurs, as it sometimes 
 does in gid, the brain decomposes and becomes purulent, the brain 
 and bone marrow turning to water and becoming putrid. The writer 
 has never seen such a case, but it is evident that if the perforation 
 of the skull were followed by perforation of the skin as well, it 
 would afford entrance to bacteria, with possibly a result similar 
 to the one given. Finally, the fact that these post-mortem findings 
 are given for sheep suffering from "the sacred disease," a term 
 covering epilepsy and other brain disorders, would indicate the 
 possibility of gid, as the symptoms of nervous disturbances are very 
 marked in this disease. Adams, the translator of Hippocrates from 
 whom the foregoing quotation is taken, and himself a physician, refers 
 to the lines quoted as follows: 
 
 It is well known that this is also the case with sheep, and that they are subject to 
 the disease called the sturdy [i. e., gid], which is indisputably a sort of epilepsy.
 
 8 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 In the somewhat limited literature on helminthology for the 
 period from 1600 to 1800, Braun's (1894a) second period, the gid 
 parasite figures to a proportionally large and increasing extent. The 
 citations from this period are given rather fully, as they are in works 
 which are not readily available to many. 
 
 In the first part of the nineteenth century, Braun's (1894a) third 
 period, there are numerous references to gid, and since 1850 and the 
 work of Kuchenmeister, which was done soon after, not a year 
 has passed in which few to many notes on the brain bladderworm, 
 its adult tapeworm, or its effects, have not appeared. This increase 
 in the amount of literature is perhaps concomitant with an increase in 
 number and distribution of sheep and cases of gid, as well as with 
 increasing knowledge of the parasite. In general the large amount of 
 literature is due to the attractive combination of scientific and eco- 
 nomic interest which has induced many persons to publish notes on 
 the disease and its parasite from one or both standpoints. 
 
 The early notes on cosnurus deal only with Ccenurus cerebralis 
 (= Multiceps multiceps) and especially with the disease caused by it. 
 It was nearly two hundred years after Scultetus (1672a) had seen 
 the first unmistakable case of gid that I have found recorded, before 
 the first ccenurus which we may regard as other than C. cerebralis 
 was noted by De Blainville (1828a). Scultetus saw his case in 1634. 
 
 The first available note published during Braun's (1894a) second 
 period of helminthology dealing with C. cerebralis is that of Rolfinck 
 (1656a) who, in a work on medical anatomy, writes of vesicles full of 
 water and humor in the third ventricle of sheep as the cause of a 
 vertigo. This may be safely accepted as a reference to C. cerebralis. 
 The description is in general terms just the one a casual observer 
 would give of this parasite, as witness the statement of a correspondent 
 to the veterinary editor of a periodical (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's 
 Bulletin 1903?-) to the effect that he found hi a sheep's head "a bag 
 of water which burst and ran out when I pressed upon it." 
 
 The next available article on the subject of gid published during this 
 period is that of Wepfer (1658a). The part relating to C. cerebralis 
 gives at this early date notes on the characteristic symptoms of the 
 disease, its pathology, and the morphology of the water bladder. 
 The disease is further recorded as a frequent cause of death in cattle, 
 and the peasants are credited with a form of operation involving 
 percussion and surprisingly good for that date. 
 
 Heusinger (1853a) quotes from a work of Bartholinus (1667aO, 
 not available to me, a statement of a species of frenzy and vertigo 
 which in 1661 attacked horses, cattle, and sheep, and notes that 
 worms were found in the heads of the animals attacked. These cases 
 may have included, and very likely did include, cases of gid. 
 
 The next available article dealing with C. cerebralis is that of 
 Scultetus (1672a), who in a Latin treatise on surgery gives the
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 9 
 
 description of a case seen at the earliest date at which we have found 
 a case recorded. The following is quoted from an English translation 
 of the same work (Scultetus, 1674a): 
 
 Observation X. Of a Vertigo in a Sheep, proceeding from an Abscess in the Brain. 
 
 In the Year 1634, December the 24th. Being in the shop of Nicolas Kite he made 
 mention of his sheep, among which one was troubled with a Vertigo, or Giddiness, 
 the Germans call it Wirbling: this Disease one who dealt in sheep affirmed to be inci- 
 dent to the fairest of the Flock; that hereby their whole Brain would be turned into 
 Water and then they would fall down dead on a sudden. The Chyrurgion therefore 
 commanded that one of those sheep which was weakened with this Giddiness, and 
 turning around, should be killed, and sent me the head. 
 
 Scultetus found nothing in the ventricle. 
 
 Afterward I lifted up the organs of smelling * * * and on the left -side, between 
 the Brain and the Pia mater, I found an abscess, like the Bladder of a Fish, full of 
 very clear water * * * I wondered that * * * the sheep should not labour 
 
 under an Apoplexy, or a Palsy, rather than a Vertigo. 
 
 / 
 
 In 1645 Scultetus lost a sheep by the same disease, and in the work 
 just noted writes: 
 
 I dissected the Head * * * and presently on the left-side as it were of the 
 backward part of the Head, under the Dura Mater, I found a Bag of the thickness of a 
 Fisches Blader, filled with Water, and little Worms, such as are bred in Cheese; for 
 it began to putrefie at the bottom. This Coated Tumour being bigger than a Hens 
 Egg, had so insinuated itself into the substance of the Brain, that it did somewhat 
 press upon the third Ventricle. This Sheep, as the Shepheard reports, turned herself 
 round about towards the night & all that day she dyed. 
 
 That gid was not uncommon in the seventeenth century is clear 
 from the fact that Rolfmck (1656a), writing of vertigo, refers to it 
 as occasionally (nonnumquam) caused by sacs of water on the brain 
 in sheep. Wepfer (1658 a) notes it as a serious and common disease 
 of cattle in Switzerland. In the account of Scultetus (1674a) it 
 appears that a sheep dealer recognizes the disease as one common 
 enough in Germany at that time to have a colloquial name, 
 "Wirbling." 
 
 The next reference to gid is by Wepfer (1681 a) and is identical 
 with the one already given, being in a later edition of the original 
 work of 1658. 
 
 Kuchenmeister (1880a) refers to an article by Brunner (1694or), 
 not available to me, and quotes from it a statement to the effect that 
 Brunner had dissected the head of a giddy calf, "vituli vertiginosi," 
 and in the cerebral substance had found three hydatids the size of 
 pigeon eggs and full of limpid fluid. Kuchenmeister takes this to 
 refer to Casnurus cerebralis, which it obviously does. 
 
 a The original Latin text reads "in tonstrino Nicolai Reutte." The translator has 
 translated not only the text but also the proper names, rendering the German name 
 Reutte by its English equivalent, Kite. 
 
 6 This last statement should read " towards the right," the Latin word here being 
 ''dextram." 
 
 51674 Bull. 125, pt. 110 2
 
 10 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 The next reference is in Wepfer (1724a). The first two parts of 
 this article consist of the two parts making up the edition of 1658. 
 With these is incorporated a third part. The same references to gid 
 occur in the parts already published and referred to above. In the 
 new part is a new reference to hydatids in the brain of cattle as 
 being commonly believed to be the cause of the vertigo accompanying 
 them. He has seen the peasants perforate the skull and extract 
 these in operations and has also seen the hydatids demonstrated 
 post-mortem. 
 
 Hoffberg (1759a), in a dissertation on Cervus tarandus, first 
 presented in 1754, writes under the heading of diseases of this 
 animal, of a vertigo or "Ringsjuka" causing the reindeer to turn in 
 circles. Braun (1894a) takes this as a reference to C&nurus cere- 
 bralis, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption. The presence 
 of the parasite in the reindeer, however, is unsupported by post- 
 mortem evidence in this reference, and, so far as I am aware, such 
 evidence is lacking in any subsequent writings. The occurrence of 
 the gid parasite in the reindeer must therefore be considered doubt- 
 ful. It seems the more doubtful hi that Brehm (1877^) states that 
 reindeer are attacked by the larva of a gadfly, specified by Moniez 
 (1880a) as Cephenomya trompe, which penetrates from the nasal 
 cavity to the brain, causing a fatal "Drehkrankheit" or gid, and 
 it may have been this disease, apparently a common one, which 
 Hoffberg saw. 
 
 Kuchenmeister (1880a) quotes from a treatise on diseases of 
 sheep by Guetebruck (1766^), already noted as not available. In 
 this treatise it is stated that the disease attacks lambs and yearlings, 
 but not old sheep; that some are born with it; that a water bladder 
 forms on the brain and may penetrate the skull; that when the 
 disease has not gone too far the flesh may be used and the head and 
 feet thrown away [very bad advice], but if the disease has gone too 
 far the entire carcass should be done away with. As a method of 
 treatment he gives venesection on the temple and nose. 
 
 Stier (1776a) has an article on gid, of which only the review was 
 seen by me, the original (Stier, 1775a) not being available. The 
 article takes up a long list of supposed causes of gid and rejects 
 them, the water bladder in the head being held guilty of causing the 
 trouble. Stier also draws a careful distinction between actual gid 
 due to C. cerebralis and simulated gid due to the presence of (Estrus 
 larvae in the nostrils, the latter presenting the symptoms most com- 
 monly mistaken for gid. 
 
 According to footnotes in Bloch (1780a), Hastfer (I776a) and 
 Ranstler (1776<*) have published references to gid, but these are not 
 available. Bloch states that they attributed gid to the bladder on
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 11 
 
 the brain, and that Ranstler was the first to notice the small bodies 
 on the bladder and surmised that worms arose from them. 
 
 According to Braun (1894a) and others, the cestode nature of the 
 water bladder found in the brain of giddy sheep was first pointed 
 out by Leske (1780a) and by Goeze (1780a), independently. These 
 references are not available to me. Braun notes that Goeze recog- 
 nized the cestode heads and considered them as the embryos of the 
 bladderworms which are found in the omentum and liver of sheep 
 and swine. He also notes that Leske found Tsenia multiceps 
 (=Coenurus cerebralis), recognizing the characteristic hooks and 
 suckers. Kuchenmeister (1880a) quotes part of Leske's article 
 showing that Leske made a very careful study of the morphology 
 and pathology of the parasite. He noted the heads invaginate 
 and evaginate through the bladder wall. From the presence of so 
 many of these heads, he observes that we may consider the animal 
 as many tapeworms attached to a common bladder, or as one tape- 
 worm with many heads. Hence it would be appropriate to call it 
 the many-headed tapeworm, so he names it Tsenia multiceps. 
 
 This last is important, as it establishes the fact that the correct 
 specific name of the gid parasite is multiceps. The preceding note 
 from Braun (1894a) confirms the correctness of Kiichenmeister's 
 (1880a) quotation, and in addition Mr. Sherborn has very kindly 
 verified the reference in the library of the British Museum. It 
 appears from evidence to be considered later that Leske's work 
 antedates that of Goeze in the same year. Were it otherwise, Goeze's 
 article need not be considered, as, according to Braun's synopsis, 
 he regarded the heads of the parasite as the embryos of the bladder- 
 worms found in the omentum of sheep and swine, and hence pre- 
 sumably proposed no new name for the brain parasite, as there 
 would be no reason for it under the circumstances or a proper appli- 
 cation for the name had he done so. 
 
 In a discussion of the synonymy of this parasite, Stiles and Steven- 
 son (1905a) accept as the specific name the one proposed by Bloch 
 (1780a). Bloch makes the genus Vermis vesicularis for the bladder- 
 worms, and divides these into three species, of which Vermis vesicu- 
 laris socialis is the brain bladderworm of sheep. But though this 
 article of Bloch's bears the same date as those of Leske and Goeze, 
 viz, 1780, Leske's article is nevertheless older, and the name pro- 
 posed by him is therefore entitled to priority. This is evident from 
 Bloch's own article, which shows that Bloch had read Leske's article 
 of the same year. Bloch states that Ranstler first noticed the small 
 bodies on the bladder walls and surmised that worms arose from 
 them, but that Leske and Goeze observed that these bodies were 
 actually bladderworms. He states that Leske has described them
 
 12 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 very completely and figured one accurately. Bloch very signifi- 
 cantly adds that Leske numbered the parasites among the tape- 
 worms, "Bandwiirmer," where, according to Bloch, they can not 
 properly be reckoned, for reasons already given by him. 
 
 It is evident from the last statement that Bloch had not overlooked 
 Leske's Tsenia multiceps and that he believed lie was correcting an 
 error by proposing the name Vermis vesicularis socialis. However, 
 subsequent work on cestode life history has shown, the invalidity 
 of all classifications which place vesicular worms in a group apart 
 from the strobila forms and has justified Leske's judgment in uniting 
 them. 
 
 Unfortunately for Leske's name, Rudolphi (1810a) did not list it 
 as a synonym of Ccenurus cerebralis, although he listed Leske's 
 article in his bibliography. For this reason Leske's name has been 
 very generally overlooked, as research in nomenclature has com- 
 monly gone back through Rudolphi to the names quoted by him. 
 Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) do not give Leske's name, Tsenia mul- 
 ticeps, in their table of synonymy, and in selecting the oldest name 
 available to them have overlooked the rather obscure references 
 to Leske's unavailable article. On calling Doctor Stiles's attention 
 to the omission he pointed out to me that Sherborn (1902a) refers 
 to Leske (1780a) with the comment "No n. spp." I wrote Mr. 
 Sherborn, asking him to verify this reference, which he very kindly 
 did. In a personal communication he quotes substantially the 
 part quoted by Kiichenmeister (1880a), and states that he over- 
 looked the name in his former reading. Mr. Sherborn was also good 
 enough to supply copies of Leske's illustrations. These show very 
 close observation. 
 
 Following the independent discoveries by Goeze and Leske of the 
 cestode nature of the water bladder from the brain of giddy sheep, 
 there arose some controversy as to which of them was entitled to 
 priority. According to Braun (1894a), Boerner (1780a) published 
 an article discussing this point and holding Goeze as the discoverer. 
 Subsequently, Goeze (1782a) repudiated Boerner's article, deploring 
 the misunderstanding between himself and Leske. He states that 
 he has explained the situation in a previous publication, the date of 
 which is not given and which is unavailable to me. Leske's priority 
 is conceded by Rudolphi (1808a) and by Davaine (1860a). The 
 matter of priority here is apparently not concerned in the nomen- 
 clature, and what honor lies in priority of discovery belongs to 
 Leske, so far as the available evidence shows. 
 
 Goeze (1782a) divides his genus " Tsenia, Bandwurm," into two 
 main classes as he calls them Tsenia visceralis, the visceral tape- 
 worms, and Tsenia intestinalis, the intestinal tapeworms. Under 
 the former he lists, among other species, ' ' Tsenia vesicularis cerebrina "
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 13 
 
 from the brain of giddy sheep, Multiceps, the many-headed, with 
 many heads and bodies in a common bladder. And later on he 
 states that from the numerous heads one may call the parasite 
 "Vielkopf (Multiceps)." 
 
 From the above, Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) have taken the 
 generic name Multiceps. The generic name used by Bloch (1780a) 
 is evidently unavailable, being composed of two words and there- 
 fore contrary to Article 8 of the International Code of Zoological 
 Nomenclature, as given by Stiles (1905y): "A generic name must 
 consist of a single word, simple or compound." 
 
 Rudolphi (1809a) rejected Bloch's Vermis vesicularis as incon- 
 gruous and unsystematic. Sherborn (1902a) is in error in listing 
 Vermis Bloch 1782 as a generic name. The combination Vermis 
 vesicularis is always used, whether with or without various specific 
 names attached. 
 
 As heretofore shown (p. 11), the earliest specific name of the 
 parasite is that of Leske (1780a) as given in the name Tsenia multi- 
 ceps. If the parasite in question is to be removed from the genus 
 Tsenia, then the new combination must use the earliest available 
 generic or subgeneric name, and since Goeze's (1782a) use of the 
 scientific name Multiceps is evidently generic or subgeneric in intent, 
 being clearly used to distinguish the many-headed gid parasite 
 from the single-headed cysticercus forms, it is necessary to use it in 
 the new name. 
 
 The tendency for some time, and certainly a desirable tendency, 
 has been to break up the large and heterogeneous group of animals 
 formerly listed in the genus Tsenia, and to restrict the use of this 
 name. The present situation has already been stated by Stiles 
 (1905y) as follows: 
 
 Most authors recognize that Tsenia is to be divided into the subgenera Tsenia, Multi- 
 ceps (i. e. Cccnurus), and Echinococcus . Some authors, however, incline to recognize 
 these subgenera as of full generic rank. 
 
 It seems advisable to restrict the generic name Tsenia to those 
 forms which have a cysticercus stage in the life history. These 
 alone make up a large group with a fairly close similarity in the 
 adult and larval stages. To retain in this already large genus forms 
 having a ccenurus or echinococcus larva seems unnecessary and 
 undesirable. Long ago Leuckart (1886d) wrote: 
 
 The Coenurus * * * is related to the Cysticercus as a compound to a simple 
 animal a sufficient reason for systematic zoologists to separate them. 
 
 Generic rank is accorded to particular groups of species which 
 in the course of evolution have attained distinctive characteristics, 
 and I see no reason for withholding such rank from forms in which 
 these distinctive characteristics occur in the larva instead of the 
 adult. This point is of especial importance in a case of this sort
 
 14 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 where the animal is found in the larval stage in the great majority 
 of cases, the adult being seldom seen or recognized. This view is 
 in accord with that of Stiles and Stevenson (1905a), from whom the 
 following is quoted : 
 
 Opinions may differ as to whether this group [Multiceps] should be given generic 
 or subgeneric rank. Personally we see no serious argument against recognizing a 
 distinct genus on basis of the "larval" stage. 
 
 Adopting, then, the genus Multiceps Goeze, 1782a, and the species 
 multiceps Leske, 1780a, as the oldest available names, the correct 
 technical name of the gid parasite is Multiceps multiceps (Leske, 
 1780a), Hall, 1910/?. 
 
 From 1782 to 1800, the latter date marking the beginning of 
 Braun's (1894a) third period in helminthology, numerous observa- 
 tions were made on gid, most of them merely confirming the previous 
 work of Leske, Goeze, and Bloch, or adding minor points of more or 
 less importance and interest. By 1800 the gid disease had been 
 observed certainly for over a centu^ and a half and very likely for 
 twenty-two centuries, its parasite had been named, described, and 
 figured, and had a fairly large number of synonyms in addition to its 
 correct name, the symptoms and pathology of the disease had been 
 given, together with the symptoms of diseases simulating gid, and 
 methods of operation had been used which only lacked aseptic pre- 
 cautions to make them equivalent to good modern methods, and 
 which were as good, perhaps, as most methods now in actual use. 
 
 There remained, then, the work of finding out the life history and 
 basing on that a rational prophylaxis. As a matter of fact the dis- 
 covery of this life history by Kuchemneister and Von Siebold marks 
 the beginning of the fourth and last period in helminthology. The 
 contributions of the third period to the subject of gid are largely 
 wrong and unnecessary theories of causation as well as unsatisfac- 
 tory methods of treatment. In addition, the large amount of litera- 
 ture in this period lists the parasite from several new hosts, often 
 erroneously, and adds considerably to the synonyms by which it 
 is known. During this period new records of the disease show a 
 widening geographical distribution, and unsatisfactory and unsub- 
 stantiated statements of its presence in the United States begin to 
 appear as early as 1809. The essential contributions in the literature 
 of this period have been covered hi tables and discussions to be given 
 later, and the important events marking the modern period of helmin- 
 thology may next be considered. 
 
 Von Siebold (1844a) proposed as an explanation of "the true nature 
 of bladderworms that they were cestode embryos which in attaining 
 a new host had gone astray, ending as encysted, incompletely devel- 
 oped forms. Thus Cysticercus fasciolaris of the mouse was held to 
 be such an incomplete sexless modification of Tsenia crassicollis of the
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTlCEPS MULTICEPS. 15 
 
 cat. He ventured to predict that in time the various tapeworms 
 would be identified in their relation to certain cysticercus, ccenurus, 
 and echinococcus forms. 
 
 Dujardin (1845a) advanced a similar theory, and this view or 
 modifications of it became popular in scientific circles during the 
 five or six years following Von Siebold's publication. It required 
 the experimental work of Von Siebold and Kiichenmeister hi 1851 
 and 1852 to complete this half truth. In the meantime the advo- 
 cates of spontaneous generation lost ground to those who urged that 
 the bladderworms were altered, degenerate cestodes or were incom- 
 pletely developed embryonal forms. 
 
 A prominent champion of the last theory, Kiichenmeister (1851e), 
 finally published a note stating that he had produced Tsenia cras- 
 sitipes [= T. crassiceps] of the fox by feeding Cysticercus pisiformis. 
 A little later (Kuchenmeister, 185 Id) he corrected this statement, 
 changing his identification of the adult worm to T. serrata. This 
 marks the beginning of the modern use of the now general experi- 
 mental feeding methods of determining life histories. 
 
 It remained for Von Siebold (1852a), the supporter of the theory 
 of hydropic degeneration of bladderworms, to furnish additional 
 proof that his theory was wrong, for this same year he produced the 
 adult cestode from the gid bladderworm. 
 
 The following year Kiichenmeister (1853e) succeeded in experi- 
 mentally demonstrating, for the first time, the entire life history of 
 a cestode. He fed Ccenurus cerebralis to a dog and produced a tape- 
 worm which he called Tsenia coenurus. He then fed the gravid pro- 
 glottids of this tapeworm to a sheep, and produced in it the early 
 stages of the coenurus in the brain. 
 
 From this experiment Kuchenmeister concludes that sheep are 
 infected in pasture by dogs dropping proglottids. Other animals, 
 he thinks, may also harbor the tapeworm, and he claims this would 
 certainly be true of wolves in Hungary and Poland. This statement 
 is evidently mere assertion, as it is not verified by the record of such 
 a finding either at the time or subsequently. At this date no de- 
 scription of T. cwnurus had been published and its anatomy had not 
 been studied. Indeed, the following year Von Siebold (1854b) 
 states that he finds the adult of C&nurus cerebralis to be Txnia 
 serrata. While the occurrence of T. ccenurus in the wolf is a proba- 
 bility, it is nothing more, so far as all available records show. 
 
 On the evidence at hand Kiichenmeister formulated a set of rules 
 for the prophylaxis of gid which is practically complete. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 1. Feed dry food the year round and do not pasture. 
 
 2. Once or twice a year, purge the sheep and dogs in some inclosed 
 place to get rid of tapeworms, and burn the feces.
 
 16 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 3. Do not, as is usually done, throw the heads of giddy sheep to the 
 dogs> or, as Kiichenmeister after investigation finds to be done, 
 throw the brain to the dogs before cooking the heads. Where there 
 are wolves one must also bury or burn the intestines of those that are 
 killed, and not throw them away to infect the fields. 
 
 Such a program is not altogether practicable or necessary, but 
 it only needs trifling amendment to bring it down to date. Had it 
 been adhered to only as regards keeping dogs free from tapeworms 
 and heads of giddy sheep away from carnivora for the last half cen- 
 tury, gid would probably have been a rare disease by this, for it is 
 really one of the most readily preventable of diseases. 
 
 The next year Kuchenmeister's work was confirmed by Von 
 Beneden (1854<r and 1854/3), Eschricht (1854or), Gurlt according to 
 Kiichenmeister (18540-) Haubner (1854c and 1854d), Leuckart 
 (1854c), and Roll (1854^), all of whom produced gid in sheep by 
 feeding proglottids of Tsenia ccenurus sent them by Kiichenmeister. 
 
 As a result of these experiments and others performed soon after, 
 the important phases of the life history of the gid tapeworm were 
 determined. It was found that the disease began with an invasion 
 period during which the embryos were migrating through the body. 
 Then followed an interval of apparent recovery, during which the 
 growth of the bladdery vesicle was going on, to the point where the 
 heads became .developed and exsertile. Here the third and final 
 stage of gid occurred, the characteristic symptoms, corresponding to 
 particular locations of the parasite, becoming more aggravated with 
 the increase in growth and number of heads until death occurred. 
 
 Subsequent work has added to our knowledge of the morphology 
 of the gid parasite, of the symptoms, pathology, and simulation of 
 the disease, and of the need of avoiding bacterial infection in opera- 
 tion. It has added numerous synonyms to the nomenclature, and 
 recorded, correctly or incorrectly, new hosts and new areas of infec- 
 tion, among the latter the United States. No essential points have 
 been added to our knowledge of the life history of the parasite or 
 the prophylaxis of the disease. 
 
 GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The history of gid in the United States is, to a remarkable extent, 
 a matter of conjecture. So far as I have been able to discover, the 
 first claim of its occurrence here was made a century ago by Liv- 
 ingston (1809^). His claim is based on very unsatisfactory evidence. 
 The following is a rather full quotation of the case : 
 
 The staggers or dizziness, which is also known by various other names, has occurred 
 in three instances in my flock, and always attacked lambs under one year. 
 They were taken very suddenly * * * by a species of convulsion, in which the 
 neck was twisted to one side; they lost the use of their legs; when raised they would
 
 GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 17 
 
 attempt to follow the flock, but turned round and fell; in a few days they were inca- 
 pable even of standing, of moving their heads or any of their limbs. As they were 
 very valuable sheep, I paid particular attention to them; grass and grain were given 
 them, which they would readily eat, though they could not move any part but their 
 jaws. In this state they lay a week without motion, except of their eyes and mouth. 
 * * * In about ten days they could stand without support, but fell when they 
 attempted to walk. * * * At intervals they would get better * * * but they 
 were always found laying in some part of the field as if they were dead. * * * In 
 the course of about six weeks they so far recovered as to be able to join the flock; one 
 of them ' * * received a blow * * * that killed him; the other two recov- 
 ered, but very slowly; and even at the end of eight months they bore evident marks 
 of their complaint. This disorder is found, upon dissection, to be owing to a bag 
 containing water within the skull. * * * It may * * * be justly considered 
 as incurable by the doctor, but not, as I have shown, by the nurse. * * * But a 
 sheep must be extremely valuable to pay for three months' constant attention. 
 
 It seems unlikely that the above cases were gid. Their occurrence 
 in lambs fits in with the theory of gid, and the general symptoms, 
 though not typical, might have been gid. On the other hand, the 
 alternation between periods of normal activity and entire collapse 
 does not look like gid, and the gradual betterment over a period of 
 eight months runs counter to the clinical history of the disease. 
 Moreover, leaving out the case of the lamb that was killed while 
 recovering, the per cent of recoveries was 100. Some writers have 
 claimed a spontaneous recovery in 2 per cent of all cases, but the 
 writer knows of no evidence showing that any cases ever recover 
 when the formation of the bladder is once under way, and a degen- 
 eration of the parasite in its earlier stages, indicated by the brain 
 concretions according to Spinola (1858b), would not give a long period 
 of slow recovery. Moreover, the three scattering cases given would 
 indicate a sporadic infection, not to be expected in the case of gid. 
 Doctor Mohler of this Bureau suggests a meningitis as the particular 
 disease simulating gid in this instance, a theory which seems to fit 
 the case very well. The lack of post-mortem evidence is unfortu- 
 nate, as even typical cases of gid may be simulated by other things. 
 
 Cole (1847'), in a book published in Boston, discussing "Sturdy, 
 or Water in the Head," states: 
 
 A writer on this subject says that he knew a shepherd in Europe that saved nearly 
 all on which he operated in this manner [by trocar], while he himself lost nearly all 
 on which he operated. 
 
 This sentence suggests that the writer referred to had operated 
 outside of Europe and most likely in the United States, but this is, 
 of course, mere speculation. 
 
 Later, a competent scientist, Leidy (1856a and 1856b) records 
 Ccenurus cerebralis in a list of parasites "observed by the author," but 
 does not state whether it was collected in the United States. 
 
 McClure (1870'), writing from the United States, says that he has 
 known as many as five ccenuri to occur in the brain of sheep. He 
 51674 Bull. 125, pt 110 3
 
 18 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 does not specify that this observation was made in the United States, 
 however, or that the disease occurs here. 
 
 Verrill (1870d), writing of gid, says: "In this country [United 
 States] the disease is far more common than most persons suppose." 
 Unfortunately, he cites no literature and no cases in support of 
 this statement, and a request for further information has not been 
 answered. 
 
 Teller (1879a) says: "Hydatid in the brain, or turnsick, although 
 reported from New York and other States, is a curiosity rather than 
 a scourge." He does not claim to have seen the disease. 
 
 Crutchfield (1880r), of Hamilton County, Tenn., says: 
 
 I have lost a few sheep by "staggers," "turnsick," etc., properly Hydatid on the 
 brain, by allowing the sheep to range upon low, wet, spongy lands. By removing 
 them at once the disease ceased. 
 
 The evidence here is not sufficient to enable one to pass judgment 
 on the case. There is no statement of symptoms or autopsy find- 
 ings, and the cessation of the disease on removing the sheep from 
 low, wet ground might or might not have followed in the case of gid. 
 Hence this case must remain uncertain. 
 
 Killebrew (1880a), writing from the same State, Tennessee, in the 
 same year does not claim to have seen the disease, but Stewart 
 (1880a), writing from New York, says of C&nurus cerebralis: "The 
 presence of this parasite has been discovered * * * in numerous 
 sheep in this country." 
 
 Stewart's statement is not convincing, but in connection with other 
 things it shows a belief on the part of men interested in the sheep 
 business that gid existed in this country. Later events indicate that 
 their belief and their statements to that effect are quite as likely to 
 have been based on fact as to have been unfounded. 
 
 Wernicke (1886a) records G. cerebralis from sheep in Buenos Aires. 
 He believes it imported from Europe and states that it is a source of 
 worry to breeders. It seems .altogether likely that if gid had been 
 imported to South America from Europe by 1886, it had probably 
 been imported to the United States from the same source even earlier. 
 In this connection, Powers (1887^) writes from New York the fol- 
 lowing year concerning gid: 
 
 I have never seen a case of this, knowing it to be such, nor have I seen an American 
 shepherd who has met with it. It was probably imported from England, and it seems 
 to prevail chiefly in the Eastern States. * * * - 1 made many autopsies of sheep 
 h for the bladder or cyst of this parasite, but I never found one. When the 
 case is long drawn out, the bladder or tumour on the brain by constant pressure on the 
 skull, absorbs it to such a degree that a finger pressed on the spot discovers a soft spot 
 in the plate of the bone, or the latter even bulges out in a protuberance. * * * 
 Twice I have seen this phenomenon in my own flocks and in rude fashion lanced 
 them, thereby saving the sheep.
 
 GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 19 
 
 There is an evident contradiction between the statement that the 
 writer has never seen gid and that he has operated on his sheep for it. 
 
 How easy it would be to import a case of gid may be surmised 
 from Rabe's (1889a) case in a gazelle imported from South Africa 
 fourteen days before death. There is also the possibility of import- 
 ing the adult worm in some of the numerous dogs which have been 
 imported to this country. Professor Law, in a personal communica- 
 tion, writes under date of July 2, 1909: 
 
 Owing to its rapid development in the lamb it is less likely to be imported in the 
 condition of larva, but among the many imported dogs the Taenia must have been 
 often imported. 
 
 All things considered, the likelihood of importing the disease via 
 the dog is perhaps as great as that of importing it in the sheep, but 
 I would not consider the latter less likely. Rabe's case and others 
 to be considered later show this. Moreover, a possible four to six 
 months is not a very rapid development of disease in these days of 
 rapid transit. An outbreak of gid attributed by Doctor Law and by 
 Taylor and Boynton (1910a) to imported dogs is discussed later in 
 this paper. The writer has collected evidence in Montana indicating 
 that the gid parasite has been imported in dogs in some instances 
 and the disease spread by the sale or gift of these dogs and their 
 offspring. 
 
 Nearly twenty years ago, Curtice (1890c) writes of larval cestodes 
 in sheep : ' ' Tsenia marginata is more common in the United States, 
 and T. ccznurus next." He hazards the guess that in the West 
 wolves, coyotes, and foxes may harbor the parasite. In a personal 
 communication Doctor Curtice writes of the above under date of 
 July 26, 1909: "I have never seen T. ccenurus. I must have made 
 statement on information by reading." 
 
 In another article Curtice (1892g) has the following: 
 
 The tapeworms identified as T. ccenurus were found but once in Colorado. The 
 species may have been one arising from rabbit cysticerci and wrongly identified. 
 The specimens were taken from a sheep dog. They are now in the bureau collection. 
 
 I have examined these specimens (Nos. 2839 and 2840), and while 
 they are not in good condition it is still possible to determine the 
 essential things. They are not T. ccenurus, so far as the material 
 furnishes data on the subject. To mention two evident differences, 
 the eggs are decidedly oval, and the handle of the large hook is of 
 an entirely different shape. 
 
 About the year 1895 the subject of gid in the United States begins 
 to receive notice in sheepmen's periodicals. Thus we find gid diag- 
 nosed by the veterinary editor of one paper (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep 
 Breeder, 1895<r) in a case where correspondents from an unspecified 
 locality give a history of staggering to the right in an imported
 
 20 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 Shropshire ewe. The animal became unable to rise and was killed. 
 On post-mortem examination a third of a teacupful of water ran out 
 of the head. We are obliged to concur in the diagnosis given and 
 consider that the disease was very likely imported with the sheep. 
 
 Later in the same year the same diagnosis is given by this editor 
 (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 1895/9) in a second case from an 
 unspecified locality, with the characteristic symptoms of giddiness 
 or turning, followed by death. Another case is diagnosed as gid on 
 the same symptoms two years later (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 
 1897$. 
 
 Sommer (1896c) did not find T. coznurus in an examination of fifty 
 dogs at Washington, D. C. 
 
 The adult tapeworm, T. coenurus, was reported from Nebraska by 
 Ward (1896b), but Stiles (1898a) on an examination of the head of 
 the specimen pronounced it T. serialis. Doctor Stiles tells me that 
 he based this identification on the bifid guard of the small hook, an 
 inadequate diagnostic character, as the corresponding guard of T. 
 coenurus is also bifid. (See Reinitz, 1885a, and Ransom, 1905d.) On 
 the other hand, the larva and adult of T. serialis are known to occur 
 in Nebraska, which makes it likely that Stiles was correct. Ward 
 (1897b) agrees with Stiles that it was T. serialis. 
 
 Knowles (1897) writes as follows: 
 
 As numbers of inquiries come to this office relative to gid, or staggers, or so-called 
 turnsick in sheep, I * * * append a well-written description, etc., of this dis- 
 ease by Doctor Curtis. [This should be Curtice.] 
 
 Doctor Knowles tells the writer that he saw his first cases of gid 
 in Montana during the year that the above was written, 1897. 
 
 Stiles (1898a), writing from this laboratory, says of Coenurus cere- 
 bralis: 
 
 Fortunately it does not seem to be prevalent in this country. * * * It has been 
 impossible for the writer to find any possible evidence of the existence of the gid 
 bladderworm in this country, yet in view of the importations from Europe of sheep 
 and dogs it is difficult to believe that we are entirely free from this parasite. 
 
 In a footnote he says : 
 
 One extremely doubtful case has been reported to us from Minnesota of its occur- 
 rence under the skin of a horse. This latter case has not been examined by the 
 bureau, but T would suggest that Tsenia serialis is common in America, and consider- 
 ing the tissue in which this parasite was found, it is not at all improbable that the 
 Minnesota case was one of Coenurus serialis ( Taenia serialis) rather than C. cerebralis. 
 
 Railliet's (1893a) earlier note of this case is based on correspond- 
 ence. 
 
 As this case stands we may choose between considering it as the 
 first and only case of C. serialis in the horse and in its normal loca- 
 tion, or regarding it as one of several cases of C. cerebralis in the 
 horse, occurring in a location in which it has been reported twice
 
 GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 21 
 
 from the sheep. The case is too doubtful to pass judgment on, and 
 the report may have been an error in the first place. 
 
 Wallace (1900a) diagnoses a case for a correspondent from Iowa 
 as gid in sheep. The symptoms are suspicious, but not clearly gid. 
 
 Shaw (190 la), writing of the sheep industry of Minnesota, says 
 that gid "has not been markedly prevalent hi Minnesota." In a 
 personal communication dated July 27, 1909, Professor Shaw writes: 
 
 I have seen cases which I supposed to be gid in sheep, but I have never seen the 
 parasite itself * * *. Dr. H. M. Reynolds, veterinarian of our [Minnesota] station 
 * * * tells me that his experience is similar to mine. He has not yet seen the 
 parasite. 
 
 The veterinary editor formerly referred to (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep 
 Breeder, 1901 7- and 1901) diagnoses a case as gid in reply to two 
 correspondents from Montana who describe the symptoms and post- 
 mortem findings of their sheep. The diagnosis is unmistakably cor- 
 rect. He states (1901<5) that gid is "fortunately not very common 
 except in the native sheep of the plains." Strictly speaking, the only 
 native sheep in America are the Bighorn sheep, Ovis montana, of the 
 mountains, never reported as subjects of gid. The reference is per- 
 haps to native-bred sheep. The diseased sheep in this case came 
 from Colorado, and the editor states: 
 
 It [C. cerebralis] is especially common in Colorado, where 70 per cent of sheep 
 examined by Doctor Curtice were infested by it. It is unquestionably quite as com- 
 mon in all the western country from Mexico as far north as the animals mentioned 
 [foxes, wolves, and coyotes] exist. 
 
 It has already been noted that Doctor Curtice says that he has 
 never seen T. ccenurus. 
 
 Finally the editor states that he has recently operated on seven 
 sheep for gid. This is the first record of what appears to be a clear 
 case of the finding of the parasite in the United States. On attempt- 
 ing to secure further information about these cases it was learned that 
 the veterinary editor in question was deceased. 
 
 In another sheep-breeders' periodical (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's 
 Bulletin, 1902<*) a case from Illinois is diagnosed as probably gid. The 
 symptoms are quite characteristic slobbering, refusal to eat, turning 
 always to left, head held down to left, death the fourth day. The 
 case was probably gid. The editor states that he has seen gid in 
 England, but not in the United States, though he claims that there is 
 reason to suppose that it occurs in imported sheep. 
 
 Law (1903a) says of the adult tapeworm from Ccenurus cerebralis: 
 "The writer raised forty-two, averaging 1 foot, in six weeks in a 
 sucking puppy." Doctor Law writes in a letter of July 2, 1909, 
 already noted, that this was done in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1864 
 or 1865, and that he has not seen gid in America.
 
 22 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 Cases from Nevada, showing the symptoms and post-mortem evi- 
 dence of gid, are so diagnosed by the veterinary editor of the American 
 Sheep Breeder (1903<r). Some cases from Kansas and Iowa, with 
 symptoms of gid, but no post-mortem findings, are also diagnosed 
 as gid. (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 1903/? and 1903?-.) 
 
 The same year, the veterinary editor of the American Shepherd's 
 Bulletin (19030-) states that the disease is prevalent in Utah and 
 common in other sections. He diagnoses gid in two imported rams in 
 Michigan (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's Bulletin, 1903/?) the diagnosis 
 seems correct from the characteristic symptom complex and gives 
 the report of an operation (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's Bulletin, 
 1903;-) from an unspecified locality where some one found a "bag of 
 water " on the sheep's brain. 
 
 The next year, Stiles (1904s) wrote of Ccenurus cerebralis: "I have 
 never seen any specimen of this parasite collected in the United 
 States." 
 
 The same year, an outbreak of gid occurred in Montana, a discus- 
 sion of this outbreak being given the following year by Ransom 
 (1905d). In that article Ransom states: 
 
 Until very recently, so far as it has been possible to determine, gid has been entirely 
 unknown in this country. * * * It seems hardly probable, in view of our present 
 knowledge, that the disease has been altogether absent * * * The disease is now 
 present in the United States, cases having developed recently which, as the attend- 
 ant circumstances show, must have resulted from infection in this country. 
 
 The sheep in question died at Bozeman, Mont. A comparison of 
 the coenuri obtained showed a complete agreement with the descrip- 
 tion of the European C&nurus, cerebralis. Ransom's article pointed 
 out the danger from this disease and the means of combating it. 
 
 In addition to Ransom's cases of gid from Montana, the veterinaiy 
 editor of the American Sheep Breeder (1905nr-) answers a number of 
 letters from which it appears that gid was present the same year in 
 Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, Colorado, Indian Territory, and other locali- 
 ties not specified. The symptoms were quite characteristic in the 
 Missouri cases and were confirmed by post-mortem in the cases from 
 Ohio and the Indian Territory. These cases are, in my opinion, 
 undoubtedly gid, and the Kansas and Colorado cases are possibly gid. 
 
 Clarke (1907 or) states that he has met many cases of gid in sheep 
 at the slaughterhouses, but in a personal communication of August 
 2, 1909, he writes that this was in England. 
 
 Wing (1907^), after many years experience with sheep, states that 
 he is not sure that he has ever seen an instance of gid. 
 
 Kaupp (1908or and 1910^) has overlooked the work of Ransom 
 (1905d), as well as some other articles we have cited, and states that 
 gid is not reported in the United States.
 
 GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 23 
 
 Luckey (1908<r), writing from Missouri, states: "Although not 
 very common in this State, what is known as sturdy or gid in sheep 
 causes some loss." 
 
 Regarding this, Doctor Luckey writes, under date of July 21, 1909, 
 that he has not kept an accurate record of outbreaks, but remembers 
 a report from Willow Springs, Howell County, describing perfectly 
 the symptoms of gid in goats. This is the only case known to me 
 where gid has been reported from the goat in the United States, and 
 it is included in a subsequent list as a probable case. 
 
 The veterinary editor of the American Sheep Breeder (1908/3) diag- 
 noses as gid a very doubtful case in an Iowa sheep, and elsewhere 
 (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 1908^) states that the disease is 
 very prevalent at the time in some parts of the United States. 
 
 The writer (Hall, 1909or and 1910^) has twice reported gid from 
 the United States, once with a record of cases. 
 
 The official files of this Bureau furnish additional data, mostly 
 obtained through inquiries by Dr. B. H. Ransom, chief of the Zoolog- 
 ical Division of the Bureau. Dr. S. W. McClure, Bureau veterinary 
 inspector, Pendleton, Oreg., in addition to furnishing this division 
 with specimens of giddy sheep, further informs us under date of Sep- 
 tember 3, 1906, that a highly reliable sheep man of Chouteau, Mont., 
 claims to have had gid among his yearlings "for many years," hav- 
 ing 40 to 60 affected every year out of 2,000. Many other Montana 
 sheepmen, according to Doctor McClure in a letter of October 15, 
 1906, claim to have the disease in their flocks. One claims to have 
 15 to 20 cases some years, another had over 200 cases among 10,000 
 lambs in 1905, another had 30 cases among 4,000 lambs in 1898, an- 
 other had 15 cases among 1,500 bucks in 1906, and others had a few 
 cases each year. Doctor McClure states that he has met sheepmen 
 who tell him that when they recognize an animal as affected with 
 gid they forward it to the feeding point for market if they have a 
 shipment about that time. 
 
 Dr. R. H. Treacy of this Bureau reports under date of June 5, 1907, 
 a list of 11 flocks in Montana where gid, shown by the presence of 
 cysts in the brain, was reported by Doctors Stauffer, Nutting, and 
 Gary. According to Doctor Treacy, the sheepmen have been class- 
 ing the trouble as loco, poison weed, water on the brain, grubs in the 
 head, etc., and have paid no attention to destroying the dead ani- 
 mals. This fact, together with the statement of Doctor Stauffer in 
 his letter of February 25, 1908, to Doctor Treacy, that certain sheep- 
 men would not subject their dogs to vermifuge treatment because 
 they were using the dogs, shows a condition of affairs which must 
 make for the spread of gid in Montana. Two other factors in the
 
 24 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 spread of gid are mentioned by Doctor Gary in a letter to Doctor 
 Treacy under date of April 9, 1908. One is the habit of some sheep- 
 men picking up a dog wherever they can find one. The other is the 
 "floater" band, or wandering band of sheep. In the latter connec- 
 tion he states: 
 
 In the spring of 1907 a giddy band of "floaters " from Flatwillow country trailed along 
 the northern boundary of the Crow Reservation, several of the lambs dying as they- 
 passed through the Blue Creek country 9 miles south of Billings, and I believe it waa 
 through this band that the Arthur Milne band in Blue Creek became affected this 
 spring. * * * The Milne lambs were raised in the Blue Creek country, and gid 
 has never been known there till this spring. 
 
 A discussion of the existing neglect of prophylactic measures 
 against gid in the western part of the United States has been given 
 by the writer in a bureau article. (See Hall, 1910or.) 
 
 Specimens of Ccenurus cerebralis from the brains of giddy sheep 
 were collected by Professor Cooley January 5, 1904, Doctor McClure 
 in May, 1906, Doctor Gary April 20, 1907, Doctor Davison December 
 21, 1907, Doctor Stauffer in January, 1908, and Doctor Peck July 
 11, 1908. 
 
 Doctor Stauffer also furnished a map of Chouteau County, Mont., 
 showing the distribution of gid in that county. Doctor Treacy has 
 prepared a map of the State of Montana showing the distribution of 
 gi<i in that State during the spring of 1908. From these maps, from 
 correspondence, and from information obtained during a personal 
 investigation of gid in Montana during the spring of 1910, the map 
 given here as figure 1 has been compiled. The infected areas shown 
 by Doctor Treacy are indicated by solid blocks. Other infected areas 
 where gid has occurred at some time during the period from 1898 to 
 1910, inclusive, are indicated by hollow blocks. The area where the 
 continued recurrence of gid shows that the range is infected is indi- 
 cated by shading. This area is 400 miles long and in places is 200 
 miles wide. During the personal investigation referred to above, 
 evidence was obtained showing that cases of gid occurring outside of 
 the infected area indicated on the map had probably been imported 
 from the infected area. It will be seen from the map that gid has 
 occurred in Teton, Chouteau, Valley, Cascade, Fergus, Gallatin, and 
 Yellowstone counties. The first four and probably northern Dawson 
 are infected ranges. 
 
 Montana's 5,747,000 sheep, representing, according to the Bureau 
 of Statistics a of the United States Department of Agriculture, a 
 value of $24,137,000 on January 1, 1910, are threatened by the pres- 
 ence of a disease which has become enzootic over a large part of the 
 
 Crop Reporter, IT. S. Department of Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 2, February, 1910.
 
 GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 25 
 
 51674 Bull. 125, pt. 110
 
 26 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 State, and which in recent years has exacted toll in increasing amounts 
 from the flocks. Such a condition necessarily exposes the flocks of 
 neighboring States to the danger of infection carried from Montana 
 by dogs or possibly by wild carnivora or in shipments of sheep. In 
 view of the unsuccessful efforts of European countries to eradicate 
 gid in over half a century of educated effort, and in view of the in- 
 crease and spread of the disease in Montana in the last decade, it is 
 to be hoped that the importance of attempting the eradication of 
 this disease will soon be realized. 
 
 The first authentic instance of gid in the eastern United States 
 occurred in 1909, and the first account of it was given by Doctor Law 
 in a paper read before the New York State Veterinary Medical Society 
 in August, 1909. The outbreak was reported by Taylor and Boynton 
 (1910a), who found it in a flock of sheep about 40 miles from Ithaca. 
 They discovered the gid parasite in the brain and claim to have 
 raised one specimen of the adult tapeworm in a dog by feeding a 
 coenurus to it. They believed that they found the source of the 
 disease in two collies imported from Scotland to the farm where 
 the disease occurred. The adult parasite was apparently not sought 
 for in the dogs. In a footnote they state that Dr. Charles Linch 
 investigated an outbreak of disease among sheep in New York in 
 the spring of 1909 and reported that it was gid, but did not report 
 finding the parasite. 
 
 Melvin (1910.-*) has called attention to the fact that Taylor and 
 Boynton have overlooked a number of articles when they state : 
 
 In a careful search of the literature we have failed to find any authentic report of a 
 positively identified case of the disease having appeared in the United States. 
 
 Subsequently, Taylor and Boynton (1910,5) have modified this 
 statement, making it refer only to New York State. 
 
 The occurrence of certain, probable, and doubtful cases of gid in 
 the United States is indicated in the following tabular statement.
 
 OCCURRENCES OF GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 27 
 
 List of occurrences of Multiceps ".nulticeps recorded from the United States. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Author. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 New York (?) 
 United States (?) 
 
 Livingston 
 Leidy. 
 
 ISOftx 
 1856a andb.. 
 
 Three cases; probably meningitis, not 
 gid. 
 Parasite observed; place not stated. 
 
 Do 
 
 McClure 
 
 1870a 
 
 Do. 
 
 United States 
 
 Verrill . . 
 
 1870d.. 
 
 States that gid occurs in United States. 
 
 New York and else- 
 
 Tellor. 
 
 1879a.. 
 
 Do. 
 
 where. 
 Tennessee 
 
 Crutchfield 
 
 1880a 
 
 Claims to have lost sheep from gid; no 
 
 United States 
 
 Stewart 
 
 1880a... 
 
 symptoms or post-mortem records. 
 States that gid occurs in United States. 
 
 Eastern United States 
 
 Powers 
 
 1887a 
 
 Claims to have cured, but not seen gid. 
 
 United States 
 
 Curtice . 
 
 1890C.. 
 
 States that gid occurs in United States. 
 
 Colorado 
 United States 
 
 ....do 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1892g 
 1895a 
 
 Adult from dog; Curtice doubts cor- 
 rectness; I find it incorrect. 
 Imported Shropshire; symptoms and 
 
 Do 
 
 American Sheep 
 Breeder. 
 do 
 
 18958... 
 
 post-mortem indicate gid. 
 One case; characteristic symptoms. 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Ward 
 
 1896b 
 
 Adult from dog; Stiles (1898a),on ex- 
 
 United States 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1897/3 
 
 amination, makes this T. serialis. 
 Accepted by Ward (1897b) from cor- 
 respondence. 
 One case; characteristic symptoms. 
 
 Montana 
 
 American Sheep 
 Breeder. 
 Knowles 
 
 1897a 
 
 Notes inquiries in regard to gid. Dr. 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Stiles 
 
 1898a 
 
 Knowles saw cases in 1897. 
 One case in horse under skin; Stiles 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Wallace 
 
 1900a . 
 
 thinks this may be C. serialis; doubt- 
 ful; case previously noted by Railliet 
 (1893a) from correspondence. 
 One case; symptoms not characteristic. 
 
 Minnesota. 
 
 Shaw 
 
 190 la 
 
 States that gid occurs in United States. 
 
 Montana 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1901rand<j 
 
 Several cases; symptoms and post- 
 
 Colorado 
 
 American Sheep 
 Breeder. 
 do 
 
 19015 
 
 mortem show gid unmistakably. 
 States that gid occurs in United States; 
 
 United States 
 
 ...do 
 
 190W . 
 
 Curtice wrongly quoted as authority. 
 Seven cases operated on by author. 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1902a 
 
 One case; characteristic symptoms. 
 
 Nevada... 
 
 American S h e p - 
 herd's Bulletin. 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1903a 
 
 Several cases; symptoms and post- 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 American Sheep 
 Breeder, 
 .do . . 
 
 19030 
 
 mortem show gid unmistakably. 
 Several cases; characteristic symptoms. 
 
 Iowa . . . 
 
 do 
 
 1903r 
 
 One case; characteristic symptoms. 
 
 Utah and elsewhere 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1903a 
 
 States that gid occurs in United States. 
 
 Michigan 
 
 American S h e p - 
 herd's Bulletin. 
 do 
 
 19030 
 
 Two imported rams; characteristic 
 
 United States 
 
 ....do 
 
 1903r--. 
 
 symptoms. 
 One case; "bag of water" on brain. 
 
 Montana 
 
 Ransom 
 
 1903d..... 
 
 Several cases in 1904; parasite found 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1905a 
 
 and studied. 
 Several cases; characteristic symptoms. 
 
 Kansas 
 
 American Sheep 
 Breeder. 
 .... do 
 
 19050 
 
 Several cases; symptoms not character- 
 
 Ohio 
 
 do 
 
 1905r 
 
 istic. 
 Two cases; symptoms and post-mor- 
 
 Colorado 
 
 ...do.... 
 
 19055... 
 
 tems show gid; had lost sheep thus 
 before. 
 Few cases; symptoms not characteristic. 
 
 United States 
 
 do . 
 
 1905s 
 
 States that gid occurs in United States; 
 
 Indian Territory 
 
 . ..do 
 
 1905C 
 
 in answer to some letters. 
 Several cases; symptoms and post- 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Luckey 
 
 1908a.. .. 
 
 mortems show gid. 
 States that gid occurs in United States. 
 
 United States 
 
 Veterinary editor, 
 
 1908a 
 
 Do. 
 
 Iowa 
 
 American Sheep 
 Breeder. 
 ...do.... 
 
 19080... 
 
 One case; symptoms not characteristic. 
 
 Montana and Washing- 
 ton, D. C. 
 
 New York 
 
 Hall 
 Taylor and Boynton. 
 
 1909a 
 1910a 
 
 Two natural and one experimental in- 
 fections; first record in this country 
 of adult worm produced by feeding 
 larva. 
 Several cases; symptoms and post- 
 
 Montana 
 
 Hall 
 
 19100 
 
 mortem show gid. 
 This article. 
 
 
 

 
 28 
 
 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 The following list of cases occurring in the United States and not 
 previously recorded is compiled from correspondence as given: 
 
 List of occurrences of Multiceps multiceps in the United States recorded here for the first time. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Letter. 
 
 Notes and dates. 
 
 Shelby, Mont 
 
 Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
 July 18, 1906. 
 
 Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
 Sept. 3, 1900. 
 Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
 Oct. 15, 1906. 
 do 
 
 Sun River Land and Live Stock Co.; 250 out of 
 10,000; 190(1; 1 case shipped to Washington, 
 D. C., died en route. 
 Cowell ilock; 40 to GO out of 2,000; many years. 
 
 Cowell flock; 15 to 30 cases; almost every year. 
 
 McDonald flock; 15 to 20 cases some years. 
 Sun River Land and Live Stock Co.; 200 out of 
 10,000; 1905. 
 Whitcomb flock; 30 out of 4,000; 1898. 
 
 Phillips flock; 15 out of 15,000; 1906. 
 Rambouillet sheepmen claim to have had several 
 cases in imported and at least one case in native 
 sheep. 
 Phillips flock; 2 or 3 at date of writing. 
 
 Pirrie flock; 250 to 300; 1907; parasite found in 3 
 of 4 examined. 
 McDonald flock; 125 dead at date of writing. 
 
 Infected country; 1907. 
 Do. 
 
 Sheep from Flatwillow country and probably 
 infected there. 
 In Blackwood, Taylor, Sprinkle, Sprinkle Bros., 
 and McCann flocks; 1907; reported by Dr. 
 Stauffer. 
 Rieder flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Stauffer. 
 Town flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Stauffer. 
 McDonald flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Nutting. 
 
 Leech flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Nutting. 
 Green flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Gary. 
 I'irrie flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Cary. 
 One case in imported ram. 
 
 McDonald flock; several cases at date of writing; 
 parasite found; 10 percent lost the winter before. 
 Sprague and Lavid flocks; 1908. 
 
 L. Sprinkle, C. Sprinkle, and Taylor flocks; 1907 
 and 1908. 
 Northwestern Live Stock Co.; 1908. 
 Blankenbaker flock; 1908. 
 One case; 1907. 
 Ewes affected; not clearly gld. 
 
 Most of these giddy bands seem to have originated 
 in the Flatwillow country. 
 
 One sheep shipped to Washington, D. C. 
 Parasite forwarded to Washington, D. C. 
 Two sheep shipped to Washington, D. C. 
 Symptoms of gid in goats; date not given. 
 
 Two cases, one showing cyst on postmortem ex- 
 amination. 
 
 Chouteau County, 
 Mont. 
 Do 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Sunnyside, Cascade 
 County, Mont. 
 Zortman, Chouteau 
 County, Mont. 
 Phillips, Mont 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 ...do 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Dr. Ransom to Dr. McClure, 
 Oct. 24, 190(5. 
 
 Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
 Dec. 5, 1906. 
 Dr. Gary to Dr. Treacy,- 
 Apr. 20, 1907. 
 Dr. Nutting to Dr. Treacy, 
 April, 1907. 
 Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, 
 May 21, 1907. 
 ...:.do 
 
 Montana 
 
 Rothlemay, Mont 
 
 Chouteau, Mont 
 
 Flatwillow country, 
 Fergus County, Mont. 
 Swimming Woman 
 country, Fergus 
 County, Mont. 
 Yellowstone County, 
 Mont. 
 Chinook, Mont. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
 June 5, 1907. 
 
 ...do... 
 
 Saco, Mont 
 
 Cut Bank, Mont 
 
 ...do 
 
 Chouteau County, 
 Mont. 
 Dupuyer, Mont. ... 
 
 .. .do 
 
 .do... 
 
 11 untley, Mont 
 
 .do... 
 
 Rothlemay, Mont 
 
 do 
 
 South Dakota... 
 
 Dr. Ransom to Dr. Hick- 
 man, July 2, 1907. 
 Dr. Davison to Dr. Melvin, 
 Dec. 21, 1907. 
 Dr. Staufler to Dr. Treacy, 
 Feb. 25, 1908. 
 do 
 
 Teton County, Mont. . . 
 Sage Creek, Mont 
 
 Bear Paw Mountains, 
 Mont. 
 Benton, Mont 
 
 ...do... 
 
 Virgelle, Mont 
 
 ...do..: 
 
 Chinook, Mont 
 
 .do 
 
 Billings, Mont 
 
 Swimming Woman 
 country, Flatwillow 
 country, Musselshell 
 country, Custer Sta- 
 tion, and Blue Creek 
 country. 
 Conrad Mont... 
 
 Roy Stebbins to Dr. Melvin, 
 Feb. 27, 1908. 
 Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, 
 Apr. 9, 1908. 
 
 Dr. Peck to Dr. Melvin, 
 July 8, 1908. 
 Dr. Peck to Dr. Melvin, 
 July 13, 1908. 
 Dr. Stauffer to Dr. Melvin, 
 Feb. 5, 1909. 
 Dr. Luckey to the writer, 
 July 21, 1909. 
 Dr. McIIenry to Dr. Melvin, 
 June 14, 1910. 
 
 Fort Benton, Mont 
 
 Oildford, Chouteau 
 County, Mont. 
 Willow Springs, Mo. ... 
 
 Waverly, Iowa 
 
 
 Some discrepancies will be noted in the above figures. No 
 attempt has been made to ascertain which are correct. Dates of 
 occurrences must also be taken with some regard for the fact that
 
 GID IN CANADA. 29 
 
 a record of gid by one or more observers as occurring in two consec- 
 utive years may not necessarily be a record of two outbreaks but 
 merely a record of one outbreak running through the winter of one 
 year into the spring of the following year. 
 
 Giddy sheep have been sent in to this laboratory from Montana 
 on four occasions, two sheep being sent in May, 1907; one in July, 
 1908; two, already noted as recorded by Hall (1909), hi February, 
 1909; and one in May, 1910. In an earlier shipment in July, 1906, 
 the one sheep sent died en route. 
 
 Both the adult and larval Multiceps multiceps have been pro- 
 duced in this laboratory at Washington, D. C., and at Bethesda, 
 Md., by feeding experiments in cases other than those noted by Hall 
 (1909<*) in an earlier paper. 
 
 From the foregoing it seems certain that the gid parasite was 
 observed in this country at least as early as 1901. It does not 
 seem likely that the many claims made for its occurrence earlier than 
 this are entirely unfounded. During an hives tigation of gid in Mon- 
 tana in the spring of 1910, the writer met a number of sheepmen 
 who claimed to have had their first losses from gid some time between 
 the years 1885 and 1890. These men have been acquainted with the 
 disease ever since and still have it in their flocks, so that there is no 
 reasonable doubt as to gid having occurred in this country previous 
 to 1890. Certainly it now has a foothold in this country. 
 
 GID IN CANADA. 
 
 The presence of gid in either the United States or in Canada must 
 necessarily be of interest to the other of the two countries, owing to 
 the possibility of the disease being carried across the border by dogs 
 or wild carnivora or in shipments of sheep. In the course of a corre- 
 spondence with this Bureau relative to gid, Dr. J. G. Rutherford, 
 the veterinary director-general of Canada, undertook to find out 
 whether gid had been imported into Canada by making inquiry of 
 sheep breeders and dealers. From a synoptical statement of the 
 replies made by thirteen dealers it appears that eleven have never 
 seen the disease in their flocks, and Doctor Rutherford himself 
 states, hi a letter of October 8, 1909: 
 
 During many years' practice, I have, personally, never seen the disease in Canada, 
 although I was quite familiar with it in Scotland when a young man. I have never 
 heard the disease mentioned by Canadian veterinarians, although, as you are aware, 
 this is no proof of its nonexistence in the country, as the members of our profession 
 are seldom called upon to treat sheep. 
 
 Of the two dealers who had seen the disease, F. H. Neil, of Lucan, 
 Ontario, "has had no trouble with gid parasite for a number of 
 years. Has seen some flocks affected in both Canada and the 
 United States, but does not specify where."
 
 30 
 
 TIIE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 The other dealer, J. H. Patrick, of Ilderton, Ontario, "has had no 
 trouble with this parasite the last few years ; previously when import- 
 ing sheep in large numbers experienced considerable loss, which he 
 attributed to this cause." 
 
 From a scientific standpoint, the data given above do not 
 justify a positive record of the gid parasite from Canada, and if the 
 disease exists there at all it seems from the above evidence to be 
 comparatively unimportant. At the same time, the presence of gid 
 in northern Montana would constitute a ready source of infection 
 for sheep in Canadian territory. 
 
 THE HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF THE LARVAL MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 
 
 In compiling the following list of hosts, an attempt has been 
 made to put them on an objective basis so far as possible. A list of 
 certain or probable hosts has been compiled for those cases where 
 Multiceps multiceps, or what appears to have been M. multiceps, 
 has been found at least once in the host in question. A list of erro- 
 neous records has been compiled for cases where there is certainly 
 an error in the record or in the finding. A third list of doubtful 
 forms seems to be the only proper place for cases where the evidence 
 is inadequate for the acceptance or rejection of the record. 
 
 In the first list given below, only those records of occurrences in 
 sheep and cattle which are of historic interest or which show geo- 
 graphic or time distribution are given, as the former are the usual 
 and the latter the very common hosts of the parasite. In the other 
 cases there are included only those where the presence of a cosnurus 
 has been shown at least once for that host, assuming it as probable 
 from the evidence at hand that the ccenurus in question was Multiceps 
 multiceps. 
 
 List of certain or probable occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Greece 
 
 Hippocrates 1825a 
 
 Probable cases 460-375 B C 
 
 Qoat 
 
 ..do 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany 
 
 Rolflnck HSGa . . 
 
 
 Do 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 Wepfer l(>58a 
 
 
 Cattle 
 
 ... .do 
 
 do 
 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany 
 
 Scultetus lf)72a.. 
 
 Date of first certain case 1634. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 Germany (?) .... 
 
 B runner 1 (>'.)!. 
 
 According to Ktichenmeister 
 
 Do 
 
 " Berovla" 
 
 Wepfer 1724a.. . . 
 
 (1880a). 
 
 
 "<;urtwillae" 
 
 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany 
 
 Leske 1780a 
 
 First recognized as a cestode para- 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 Goeze 1780a 
 
 site. 
 Independently recognized as a par- 
 
 Do... 
 
 Italy 
 
 Fontana 1784a . . , 
 
 asite. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 ..do 
 
 do . 
 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany 
 
 Sohrank 17SSa 
 
 
 Cattle 
 
 do . 
 
 do 
 
 
 Chamois. 
 
 Alps 
 
 Ketzius 179fla . 
 
 A t least one case. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 England . 
 
 Moorcroft 1792a 
 
 Claimed to occur in France and 
 
 Cattle 
 
 do 
 
 . .do... 
 
 Italy also. 
 
 African antelope.. . . 
 
 Not given 
 
 Rudolph! 1808a . 
 
 Accepted here on basis of subse- 
 
 
 
 
 quent findings.
 
 HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 31 
 
 List of certain or probable occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps Continued. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 France 
 
 Bosc 181Ca 
 
 
 Horse 
 
 
 Bousset 1822a 
 
 According to Gurlt (1831a) 
 
 Do 
 
 (') 
 
 Hofacker 1823a 
 
 
 Chamois. 
 
 Paris, France 
 
 De Blainville 1824a 
 
 
 Sheep 
 
 France 
 
 Yvart 1827a 
 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 Dupuy 1831a.. 
 
 cording to Braun (1894a). 
 From spinal canal 
 
 Horse 
 
 
 Frenzel(Date?) 
 
 According to Gurlt (1831a) and 
 
 Do 
 
 England 
 
 Youatt 1834b 
 
 Numan (1850b). 
 
 St. Domingo goat. . . 
 
 do 
 
 Youatt 1836c 
 
 symptoms given. 
 
 Sheep. . . . 
 
 Germany 
 
 Pluskal 1844a. 
 
 nurus on basis of subsequent 
 findings. 
 
 Do 
 
 Austria 
 
 do 
 
 
 Do... 
 
 Ireland 
 
 Bellingham 1844a 
 
 
 Goat 
 
 Germany 
 
 Klencke 1844a. 
 
 
 Mouflon. . 
 
 Montpelier, France 
 
 Gervais 1847b 
 
 One case 
 
 Horse 
 
 
 Ammon(?) 
 
 According to Numan (1850b) 
 
 Sheep 
 
 (?) 
 
 Storig(Date?). 
 
 Found it twice in the medulla ob- 
 
 Do 
 
 Holland 
 
 Numan 1850b 
 
 longata, according to Numan 
 (1850b). 
 
 Angora goat 
 
 do 
 
 ....do 
 
 in cerebrum, medulla oblongata, 
 and in spinal cord. 
 Coenurus is figured. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 Kempton, [Bavaria 1 *] 
 
 Hering 1852a 
 
 Occurred in 1850-51 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany 
 
 Hagmaier 1853a 
 
 In spinal canal. 
 
 Antelope 
 
 
 Jacques and Lafosse 
 
 
 Goat 
 
 (?) 
 
 1854b. 
 do 
 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Scotland . . 
 
 McCall 1857a... 
 
 
 Do 
 
 France... 
 
 Reynal 1857a. . 
 
 
 Cattle 
 
 .do.. 
 
 do 
 
 
 Sheep 
 
 A If or t, France 
 
 Valenciennes 1857a 
 
 In spinal cord and brain' sent by 
 
 Horse 
 
 Vienna, Austria. 
 
 Spinola 1858b 
 
 Delafond. 
 In spinal cord; specimen in veteri- 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany 
 
 do.. 
 
 nary school. 
 In spinal cord. 
 
 Goat 
 
 Toulouse, France 
 
 Baillet 1859b.. 
 
 One certain and 1 possible infection 
 
 Gazelle 
 
 do . 
 
 do 
 
 of 4 experiment animals. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Warschau . . . 
 
 Leisering 1859a 
 
 Eichler's subcutaneous specimen* 
 
 Do 
 
 Germany 
 
 Leisering 18C2a 
 
 found to be coenurus by Eichlerj 
 Leisering, and Zenker. 
 
 Gazelle (Antilope 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 specimen; Eichler's specimen 
 noted again. 
 One case in a zoological park 
 
 dorcap}. 
 Horse 
 
 Prussia 
 
 Esse et al. 18G3a: Kei- 
 
 One case; accepted on svmptoms 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Iceland 
 
 per et al. 1804.a 
 Krabbe 1864h 
 
 and in view of other cases. 
 Disease often seen here' accepted 
 
 Cattle 
 
 ..do 
 
 do... 
 
 on Krabbe's finding of adult 
 worm in dogs. 
 Rare; accepted as above 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Denmark 
 
 do 
 
 Claimed to occur; accepted as 
 
 Cattle... 
 
 . do 
 
 ..do 
 
 above. 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 England 
 
 Cooper 1805a.. 
 
 Three cases. 
 
 Chamois 
 
 Germany 
 
 Frauenfeld IStiSa 
 
 Do. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Vienna, Austria... . 
 
 Bunion 1874a. . 
 
 Several spinal cases seen by Roll. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Germany. . . 
 
 Miiller 1877a 
 
 One case with coenurus in spinal 
 
 Antelope (Bubalis 
 sp.). 
 Sheep 
 
 Lyon, France 
 South Australia 
 
 Bertolus and Chau- 
 veau 1879a. 
 Dixon 1883a. 
 
 cord; 1 in medulla oblongata. 
 Host from Africa. 
 
 Do 
 
 Sardinia 
 
 Parona 1884a 
 
 
 Horse 
 
 Culm, Germany 
 
 Schwanefeld 1885a 
 
 Contained one-sixteenth of a liter 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Buenos Ayres, Argen- 
 
 Wemicke 1886a 
 
 of fluid. 
 
 nipnotragus egui- 
 
 tine Republic. 
 
 Germany L . 
 
 Rabe 1889a. . 
 
 Host from South Africa; in brain, 
 
 nus (?). 
 Sheep 
 
 Montana, U. S 
 
 Vet. Ed. Amer Sheep 
 
 thyroid, lymph glands, and mus- 
 culature. 
 
 Do... 
 
 New Zealand 
 
 Breeder 1901 rand 3. 
 Gilruth 1902a 
 
 mortem findings. 
 
 Goat 
 
 Cape Colony 
 
 Buckley 1904a 
 
 
 Cow... 
 
 ...do... 
 
 Robinson 1905a... 
 
 toms and post-mortem findings. 
 One case.
 
 32 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 List of certain or probable occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps Continued. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Cattle . . 
 
 France . 
 
 Leblanc and Freger 
 
 One case. 
 
 Chamois 
 
 Germany 
 
 1907a. 
 Rothl907c 
 
 Do. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 England 
 
 Pollock 1908a 
 
 
 Horse 
 
 Shetland 
 
 White 1909a. . 
 
 One case; symptoms of gid and 
 
 Cow 
 
 Germany 
 
 Pfab 1909a . . . 
 
 recovery of parasite by operation. 
 The only record found of the para- 
 
 Sheep 
 
 England 
 
 Lloyd 1909a 
 
 site from the vertebral canal in 
 this host. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 Italy 
 
 Vicariotto 1909a. 
 
 
 Sheep . . . 
 
 Montana and Wash- 
 
 Hall 1909a . . 
 
 
 Goat 
 
 ington, D. C. 
 Missouri, U. S 
 
 Doctor Luckey in let- 
 
 From personal correspondence with 
 
 Cow - 
 
 Germany 
 
 ter of July 21, 1909. 
 Borstelmann 1910a 
 
 Doctor Luckey already noted. 
 Bladderworm the size of pigeon egg 
 
 Cattle 
 
 do 
 
 Pfab 19ia<i 
 
 in medulla oblongata; probably 
 M. multiceps from size and loca- 
 tion. 
 Fifty-eight operations from 1903 to 
 
 Sheep 
 
 German Southwest 
 
 Scheben 1910a 
 
 1909, inclusive; additional cysts 
 found in the medulla oblongata 
 in 3 cases. 
 
 
 Africa. 
 
 
 
 A reference by title only to an article by Gough (1909a) on "A Cccnurus in the Duiker" can not be veri- 
 fied at this time, as the article is not yet available. The article is referred to here on the likelihood of a 
 coenurus from the duiker antelope being the gid parasite. 
 
 In the foregoing list the sheep, cow, goat, horse, chamois, mouflon, 
 gazelle, and some antelope forms given as antelope, African ante- 
 lope, Bubalis sp. and Hippotragus equinus (?) are accepted as hosts 
 of Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 The parasite is recorded from sheep in Greece, Germany, Switzer- 
 land, England, France, Italy, Ireland, Holland, Scotland, Austria, 
 Denmark, Iceland, Argentine Republic, Sardinia, South Australia, 
 New Zealand, German Southwest Africa, and the United States. Its 
 presence is claimed or implied, by local names for gid or otherwise, 
 in Hungary by Kuchenmeister ( 1853e) and Cobbold (1867o), in Cape 
 Colony by Hellier (1894a) and Hutcheon (1904<r), in Chile and Spain 
 by Monfallet (1899a), and in Shetland by White (1909 a). 
 
 It is recorded from cattle in Switzerland, Germany, England, Italy, 
 France, Iceland, Denmark, and Cape Colony. 
 
 It is recorded and figured from the goat in Holland by Numan 
 (1850b); it was experimentally produced in this host in France at 
 least once and possibly twice by Baillet (1859b); the characteristic 
 symptoms and post-mortem findings are recorded for several cases 
 in Cape Colony by Buckley (1904); and on the strength of these 
 records the following have been accepted: Jacques and Lafosse's 
 (1854b) case, Youatt's (1836rr) "hydatid" from the brain of a goat 
 with symptoms of gid, Klencke's (1844a) record from Germany, 
 Hippocrates's(1825rr) necessarily uncertain record from Greece, and 
 Doctor Luckey' s cases recorded here from the United States. 
 Klencke claims to have produced the coenurus by an absurd inocula- 
 tion experiment, but this host record may be accepted in view of 
 the possibility that he inoculated a goat already infected with gid.
 
 HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 33 
 
 Doctor Luckey's cases are accepted on the objective grounds that the 
 cases seemed to be gid and that the parasite is known from that host 
 and has been found in this country. Baillet (1859b) says that gid 
 has often been seen in goats by veterinarians, but does not add any 
 particulars. 
 
 Spinola ( 1858b) states that the veterinary school at Vienna had a 
 specimen of the gid parasite taken from the spinal cord of a horse. 
 Esse and his associates (ISGSnO and Keiper and his associates (1863<-r 
 and 1864<r) found a parasite in the brain of a horse in Prussia, and on 
 the strength of the symptoms concluded that it was a cosnurus, but 
 they apparently did not study the parasite to see what it was. 
 Schwanefeld (1885a) states that he found a cosnurus containing 
 one-sixteenth of a liter of fluid in the brain of a horse in Germany. 
 Youatt (1834/?) saw a horse that showed symptoms of staggering; 
 post-mortem examination disclosed a "hydatid" in the septum 
 lucidum. White (1909a) operated on a horse that showed symptoms 
 of gid and extracted a cyst from the brain. On the combined evi- 
 dence the above cases are accepted, as well as those of Ammon, 
 Bousset, Frenzel, and Hof acker as given by Gurlt ( 183 la) and Numan 
 (1850b), which cases are covered in articles not at present available. 
 
 Multiceps multiceps is recorded from the chamois in Switzerland 
 by Retzius (1790a), in France by De Blainville (1824a), in three 
 cases in Germany by Frauenfeld (1868a), and in one case by Roth 
 (1907c), a total of six cases. Frauenfeld also states that the royal 
 head forester had noted several cases of gid in the chamois and that 
 the disease is well known to old chamois hunters. 
 
 The parasite has been found in the gazelle in France by Baillet 
 (1859b) and in Germany by Leisering (1862a). 
 
 It has been found in the antelope by Jacques and Lafosse ( 1854b), in 
 Eippotragus equinus (?) by Rabe ( 1889a) , in Bubalis sp. by Bertolus and 
 Chauveau (1879a), and in an African antelope by Rudolphi (1808a). 
 
 In Rabe's case the host had only been in Germany fourteen days 
 after its arrival from Africa, and Leisering's host animal was from a 
 zoological park; the host noted by Bertolus and Chauveau had been 
 shipped from Africa to France, and Rudolphi's antelope is specified 
 as African. Gough's (1909<r) ccenurus, alluded to on page 32 is 
 another case of a ccenurus in an African antelope. These facts 
 seem to indicate that the gid parasite is not uncommon among 
 the Bovida3 of Africa. Nor is this an unreasonable supposition. 
 Varieties of native sheep and species of antelope are so distributed 
 throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe that there is practically no 
 break in the geographic distribution of host species between the 
 European countries known to be infected and the Cape of Good Hope, 
 where it appears from the records of Hellier ( 1894a), Buckley ( 1904 <r), 
 Robinson (1905a), and Robertson (1908^) that the disease also 
 51674 Bull. 125, pt 1105
 
 34 
 
 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 exists. The transmission of the parasite across this area, if indeed 
 it was not originally distributed from Egypt, or the valley of the 
 Euphrates, would be a simple matter for the flocks of nomadic shep- 
 herds or individual hosts of the adult or larval parasite. Scheben 
 (1910<r) states that gid is a trouble of long standing in German 
 Southwest Africa. The increasing interest in the parasite fauna of 
 Africa ought to result in additional light being thrown on this subject. 
 
 Multiceps multiceps has been recorded once from the mouflon in 
 France by Gervais (1847b). Schrank's (1788a) statement that it 
 occurs in the mouflon is without any record of authority or of per- 
 sonal observation. 
 
 The above list shows records of the occurrence of Multiceps multiceps 
 more than eight times in the spinal cord of sheep, in one case with a 
 simultaneous infection of the brain, and in one case with simultane- 
 ous infection of the brain and medulla oblongata. The parasite is 
 twice recorded from the medulla oblongata alone in the sheep with a 
 total of three cases. It must be much more common in these loca- 
 tions than records of cases show, as Frenzel (1794a) stated over a 
 century ago that the parasite occurs in the brain, medulla oblongata, 
 and spinal cord. It is recorded from the subcutaneous tissue of the 
 sheep twice, from the spinal cord of the horse once, from the spinal 
 cord of the cow once, from the medulla oblongata of the cow four 
 times, and from the brain, thyroid, lymph glands, and musculature 
 of the gazelle once. 
 
 If from the above list of certain and probable occurrences there were 
 selected those cases where it is certain that the parasite was Multiceps 
 multiceps, on the basis of description, figures, and feeding experiments, 
 the certain hosts would be limited to the sheep, cow, and goat. 
 
 In the following list are shown those cases where a record is based 
 on data which I regard as inadequate, or where the author himself 
 has considered the case doubtful, or where both these things are true : 
 
 List of doubtful cases of the occurrence of the larval Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Reindeer ( Cenvt 
 
 Lapland 
 
 HofTberg 1759a 
 
 Symptoms resemble gid; so accepted 
 
 tarandus). 
 Giraffe (Camelo- 
 
 Not given 
 
 Rudolph! 1804a. 1810a. 
 
 by Braun (1894a). 
 
 pardali* girafja). 
 
 do 
 
 Rudolphi ISOSa 
 
 Statement that hvdatids are rare in the 
 
 Do 
 
 ...do... 
 
 Gurlt 183la 
 
 brain of the horse. 
 Brain and spinal cord. 
 
 Roe deer ( Cervus 
 
 do 
 
 Barthelemy 1839 
 
 Mere statement; accepted by Diesing 
 
 copreoZtw). 
 Sheeo 
 
 Germany 
 
 Jacob! 1882o... 
 
 (1850a). 
 Entire flock afflicted with spinal gid. 
 
 Pig P 
 
 Finland 
 
 Kolster 1893a 
 
 In heart. 
 
 Horse 
 
 United States 
 
 Stiles 1898a 
 
 Subcutaneous. 
 
 Dog 
 
 Italy 
 
 Guerrini 1909a 
 
 Given in list of museum specimens. 
 
 
 
 
 
 The above list shows that it is doubtful whether the reindeer, 
 giraffe, roe deer, pig, and dog can be considered as hosts of Multiceps 
 multiceps.
 
 DOUBTFUL CASES OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 35 
 
 In the historical sketch (p. 10) the necessity for considering the rein- 
 deer a doubtful host of Multiceps multiceps has already been shown. 
 It is true that Diesing (1850a) lists the parasite from this host, credit- 
 ing the observation to Retzius, but as a matter of fact Retzius (1790a) 
 lists the parasite from Capra rupicapra, the chamois, and not from 
 the reindeer. 
 
 Rudolphi (1804a) states that in conversation with Le Vaillant, the 
 latter told him that he had found worms in the brain of the gazelle 
 and the giraffe. Later, Rudolphi (1810a) lists these as " Wwnurus 
 cerebralis" from the gazelle, and " Wcenurus" from Camelopardalis 
 giraffa, showing that he himself felt very doubtful of this last case. 
 In view of the fact that no one has previously or since recorded a 
 ccenurus from this host, and that Rudolphi (1819a) later omits the 
 giraffe from his list of hosts of this parasite, and in view of the fact 
 that the giraffe's habit of feeding largely on high-growing foliage 
 renders it little likely to have its food contaminated by the feces of 
 the known hosts of the adult Multiceps multiceps, we must consider 
 this record of Le Vaillant's finding very doubtful. 
 
 Rudolphi's (1808a) bare statement that hydatids in the brain of 
 the horse were rare, together with his failure to list his Catnurus cere- 
 bralis from this host in his later work of 1810, leaves it extremely 
 doubtful whether he knew of any cases of the occurrence of C. cere- 
 bralis in this host. 
 
 Gurlt (183 la), in a list of hosts of Multiceps multiceps, lists it from 
 the horse, specifying the brain and spinal cord as locations. As he 
 gives no record of cases and no authority for this statement, it seems 
 likely that he was reasoning the possibility of this from the occur- 
 rence of the parasite in both locations in the sheep. 
 
 The acceptance of the roe deer, Cervus capreolus, as a host of Mul- 
 ticeps multiceps by Diesing (1850a) and by subsequent writers is 
 based by Diesing and by such writers as take the trouble to cite an 
 authority on Barthelemy (1839a). Barthelemy states that gid 
 occurs in sheep, in the roe deer, and in other animals. He does not 
 claim to have seen the parasite in the roe deer, nor does he cite any 
 one who has, hence his statement, though very plausible, is not con- 
 vincing, and this record must also be held doubtful. 
 
 According to Jacobi (1882), in a flock of 400 yearling lambs, 186 
 died with coenuri in various parts of the spinal cord, but no co3nuri 
 were found in the brain. The correctness of this statement seems 
 questionable. That cumuri should be found in the spinal cord in a 
 great number of sheep would be surprising; that none should be 
 found in the brain at the same time is scarcely to be believed. Pos- 
 sibly the disease in question was hydro-rhachitis and serum accu- 
 mulations in various parts of the cord were mistaken for coenuri. 
 
 Kolster (1893a) found several vesicles, each having several heads, 
 under the pericardium of a pig. He could not decide whether it was
 
 36 
 
 T1IE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 the larva of Tsenia ccenurus or of some other Tsenia having a coenurus 
 larva. I consider this case extreme.lv doubtful. If Multiceps multi- 
 ceps could develop in the pig, it seems likely that it would not be 
 altogether uncommon, and hence would have been reported hereto- 
 fore. Furthermore, the location is an unlikely one for this parasite. 
 As the specimen in question does not seem to have had the study 
 necessary for an identification, we are compelled to include the pig 
 among the doubtful hosts of Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 In discussing gid in the United States, we have already considered 
 Stiles's (1898a) record of subcutaneous cccnurus in the horse. 
 
 Guerrini (1909a), in a list of the parasite specimens in the collec- 
 tion of the veterinary college at Bologna, lists Coenurus cerebralis 
 Rud. from Bos taurus (meninges) and Canis familiaris (meninges). 
 The adult worm, Tsenia ccenurus Kiichenm., is also listed from Canis 
 familiaris (intestinum). Such a record of Caenurus cerebralis from 
 the meninges of the dog must ncessarily be looked upon with doubt. 
 When an extremely unusual or unlikely thing is recorded, the 
 acceptance of the record must depend upon the evidence. The 
 reliability of the collector, the accuracy of the person identifying the 
 specimen, the features on which the identification was made, and 
 the validity of the label, are all matters which should be made known. 
 No evidence is furnished in this case, and hence the record of such a 
 parasite in the dog can not be accepted without reservation. 
 
 In the opinion of the w r riter all records of the giraffe, the roe deer, 
 the pig, and the dog as hosts of the larval Multiceps multiceps should 
 be thrown out, as they are all probably erroneous. 
 
 The following list includes those cases where the records show 
 undoubted errors. 
 
 List of the erroneous records of the occurrence of the larval Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Man 
 
 Not given 
 
 Rolfinck l()56a 
 
 Claims to have seen a case. 
 Produced by injection of rotten coenu- 
 rus in veins. 
 Produced by inoculation of rotten coen- 
 urus on brain. 
 Misprint or based on mistranslation. 
 Based on Aran (1841a). 
 Based on Retzius (1790a). 
 
 Based on De Blalnville (1824a). 
 Based on Leblond (1837a). 
 
 In spinal cord. 
 
 Yon Nathusiiis's subcutaneous speci- 
 men from sheep erroneously listed. 
 Subcutaneous; error as above. 
 Do. 
 
 Dog 
 
 England . . 
 
 Moorcroft 1792a 
 
 Rabbit (?) 
 
 Not given 
 
 Laennec 1804a 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 do 
 
 Cloquet 1818a 
 
 Do 
 
 France 
 
 Le blond 1837a . 
 
 Man 
 
 Germany 
 
 Klencke 1844a. . 
 
 Doe .. 
 
 do." 
 
 do 
 
 Rabbit.. . 
 
 do. 
 
 do 
 
 Cat. 
 
 do 
 
 Nunian 1850b... 
 
 Camel 
 
 Not given 
 
 do 
 
 Iteindeer (Genius 
 tarandm}. 
 Camel ( Camtlus 
 dromedarius). 
 Rabbit 
 
 do 
 
 Diesing 1850a 
 
 do 
 .. do... 
 
 Diesing ISSOa et al 
 ...do... 
 
 "Ex Ipalacis capen- 
 sis.' 1 
 Pig 
 
 Port Natal 
 
 do 
 
 Not given 
 
 Veterinarian 1855o 
 
 Kuch.s l$59a. 
 
 Cow ... 
 
 do 
 
 Spalaz capensis 
 Cow 
 
 Port Natal... 
 
 Diesing 1864a 
 
 Not given 
 
 Pagenstecher 1877a 
 
 Von Linstow 1878a 
 Moniez ISSOa... 
 
 Do... 
 
 ...do... 
 
 Do... 
 
 ...do...
 
 ERRONEOUS RECORDS OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 37 
 
 List of the erroneous records of the occurrence of the larval Multiceps multiceps Cont'd. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Cow . 
 
 Not given 
 
 Leuckart 188Cd 
 
 Same error as Pagenstecher (1877a) 
 
 Goose 
 
 do... 
 
 Neumann 1888a. 
 
 above. 
 Based on Hering (ISCla). 
 
 Cow. 
 
 .do 
 
 Railliet 1893a 
 
 Same error as Pagenstecher (1877a) 
 
 Horse 
 
 Germany 
 
 ...do... 
 
 above. 
 In eye; based on Heincke (1882a). 
 
 San bur ( Cervus 
 
 Not given 
 
 Hassall 1898a 
 
 In list. 
 
 unicolor). 
 Cow . . 
 
 ...do... 
 
 Vaullegeard 1901a 
 
 In eye. 
 
 Antelope 
 
 ...do... 
 
 do...' 
 
 bo. 
 
 Camel 
 
 do 
 
 Espejo y Del Rosal 
 
 Based on Lafosse. 
 
 
 
 1905/9. 
 
 
 The weight of evidence indicates that there are no certain, proba- 
 ble, or reasonably doubtful cases of the occurrence of Multiceps mul- 
 ticeps in the larval state in man, the cat, rabbit, camel, sanbur, goose, 
 or the hypothetical " Ipalax capensis." It is also reasonably certain 
 that Moorcroft (1792a) and Klencke (1844a) have erred in recording 
 Coenurus from the dog; that Retzius did not find a coenurus in 
 Cervus tarandus, as Diesing (1850a) credits him with doing; that the 
 record of Multiceps multiceps from the spinal cord of the cow given 
 by Fuchs (1859a) is not based on an actual case; that M. multiceps 
 has not been found in a subcutaneous location in the same host as 
 Pagenstecher (1877a), VonLinstow (1878a), Moniez (1880a), Leuckart 
 (1886d), and Railliet (1893a) give it; that Heincke's (1882a) parasite 
 from the eye of the horse was not a ccenurus as Railliet (1893a) 
 states, and that M. multiceps is not known from the eye of the cow 
 and of the antelope, as Vaullegeard (1901a) states. 
 
 Rolfinck (1856a) refers to a vertigo caused by vesicles full of 
 water and serous humor in the brain of sheep and of man. Un- 
 doubtedly he refers to gid and its parasite in sheep, but the vertigo 
 referred to in man has been found to be due to Cysticercus cellulose 
 and Echinococcus granulosus in those cases where the most compe- 
 tent scientists have investigated the parasite. Klencke's (1844a) 
 statement that he has seen a ccenurus in the brain of man does not 
 of itself give sufficient data on which to reject the finding, but a 
 study of Klencke's work, in which he claims to have repeatedly 
 produced ccenurus in various hosts by inoculation of coenurus par- 
 ticles, shows that his statements are not reliable, and for this reason 
 his quite improbable claim of the occurrence of ccenurus in man is 
 thrown out. Gervais and van Beneden (1859b) have stated that 
 Klencke's statements do not merit confidence. 
 
 In his nomenclature of diseases of man, Bertillon (19030-) lists 
 Ccenure under diseases of the digestive tract, and the Commission 
 Internationale (1909o-), in its revision of the same work, has retained 
 this listing. As the records indicate, there are probably no cases 
 of ccenurus in man. Whether such cases have occurred or not,
 
 38 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 there are no good grounds for listing coenurus or cysticercus us 
 intestinal parasites, as Bertillon and the commission have done. 
 
 Moorcroft (1792a) states that anatomists and, to a still greater 
 extent, butchers and shepherds, have long known of collections of 
 colorless fluid in thin capsules in the brain of sheep and cows, and 
 adds: "They have been met with in dogs." 
 
 The larval cestodes of dogs include, according to various authors, 
 Cysticercus and Echinococcus. Von Linstow (1889a) lists a Coenurus 
 sp. from the dog, attributing it to Pagenstecher, but Pagenstecher 
 (1877a), in the reference cited, refers to a growth on the neck of 
 Myopotamus coypus, which he says might have been a growth of 
 a cystoid or colloid nature such as is found in dogs, but which he 
 finds to be a coenurus. Klencke (1844a) claims to have produced 
 a ccenurus in the dog by injecting rotten coenurus into its veins, a 
 claim so absurd as to at once discredit his findings. Guerrini's 
 (1909#) record of a museum specimen has already been mentioned 
 as doubtful. There are, therefore, no adequate and reliable refer- 
 ences to a coenurus from the dog, and as it is on the face of it 
 highly improbable that the larval Multiceps multiceps would occur 
 in the dog, we may throw out Moorcroft's casual reference. 
 
 Lsennec (1804a) states that the gid parasite occurs in the sheep, 
 the cow, and perhaps in the rabbit. The last host is included on the 
 basis of hunters' statements that they have seen gid in rabbits. 
 Moniez (1880a) says he has seen such a case of gid in the rabbit, but 
 it was not due to a coenurus, and Laennec admits that no one had 
 ever seen the parasite in such cases. 
 
 Cloquet (1818a), in an article which appears to be an abstract of 
 Lsennec (1804a or 1812a), has made a positive statement of Lsennec's 
 tentative inclusion of the rabbit as a host of the gid parasite. 
 
 Leblond (1837a) notes that Lsennec (1812a) did not know of any 
 vesicular worms from the brain of the rabbit, and describes a cyst 
 taken from the vertebral canal of a rabbit by Dr. Emmanuel Rous- 
 seau and sent to Leblond, who finds it to be Coenurus cerebralis. De 
 Blainville (1828a) had previously described a coenurus, which he 
 calls an Echinococcus, from the peritoneal cavity of a rabbit. This 
 and subsequent records of the sort have been usually, and probably 
 correctly, taken as cases of Multiceps serialis, which was described 
 as a separate species by Gervais (1847a). Gervais and van Beneden 
 (1859b) have examined Leblond's specimen and think it is not C. 
 cerebralis. Klencke (1844a) claims to have produced a coenurus in 
 the rabbit brain by inoculating the brain with bits of rotten coenurus, 
 but such a claim settles that his record has no right to recognition. 
 
 Numan (1850b) states that Engelmeyer in 1850 recorded the 
 presence of a coenurus in the liver of a cat, and as Numan treats of 
 only one species of crenurus, the inference is that this was an infection
 
 DISCUSSION OF ERRONEOUS RECORDS. 39 
 
 with Multiceps multiceps, which, however, would be a highly improb- 
 able occurrence. Engelmeyer's article is not available for verifica- 
 tion, but Neumann (1893i) has attempted to verify this record and 
 finds that Engelmeyer's case is a quite ordinary record of Echinococcus 
 in the liver of a cow. According to Neumann, the error arose from 
 Numan writing "kat" instead of "koe." Neumann criticises 
 Cobbold for translating Numan's "Veelkop" as Coenurus instead of 
 Polijcephalus. The criticism seems hardly fair to Cobbold, as 
 Numan uses Coenurus, Polycephalus, and ' ' Veelkop " interchangeably to 
 mean one and the same thing, i. e., the gid parasite. And at the point 
 in question, Engelmeyer's case is cited to show that the "Veelkop" 
 is not confined to the brain and spinal cord. Had Numan intended 
 to include Echinococcus in his discussion of "Veelkop," he would 
 hardly have referred to one case from the liver as an exception to 
 the rule that it occurs regularly in the nervous system, as the reverse 
 would be true for Echinococcus. It is probable that Numan has 
 erred in including Engelmeyer's case in the way he did, and certain 
 that he quoted it wrongly. 
 
 Diesing (1850a) and many subsequent writers have listed Multi- 
 ceps multiceps from the camel, the authority, where given at all, being 
 usually De Blainville (1824a). By a coincidence, or by one author 
 misleading the other, Numan (1850b) in the same year assisted in 
 strengthening Diesing's error by also listing the parasite from the 
 camel, basing the statement on De Blainville's case in Aran (184 la). 
 As a matter of fact, Aran says that De Blainville found the parasite 
 in a chamois, and De Blainville himself says it was a chamois. The 
 explanation appears to be that either Diesing or Numan or both of 
 them confused "chamois" and "chameau," or perhaps the printer 
 did. Espejo y del Rosal (1905/?) says that Lafosse saw the gid 
 parasite in the camel. Lafosse (1854b) has noted gid in the sheep 
 and (Jacques and Lafosse, 1854b) in the antelope, but never in the 
 camel so far as available records show. At any rate, there is no 
 authority at hand for listing the camel as a host of Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 It has already been shown (p. 35) that Diesing (1850a) erred in 
 crediting Retzius withjisting Multiceps multiceps from Cervus taran- 
 dus, as Retzius (1790a) records it from the chamois, not the reindeer. 
 
 Diesing (1850a) also states that what is probably a specimen of 
 Coenurus cerebralis is known "Ex Ipalacis capensis." There is no 
 mammal genus from which the genitive "Ipalacis" could be derived, 
 and Diesing (1864a) has later given the name as Spalax capensis, in 
 this case merely calling the parasite a ccenurus. Von Linstow 
 (1878a) lists the host as Georhynchus capensis, and it seems likely 
 that the ccenurus in question was taken from this host, the generic 
 name of which is properly Georychus, according to Palmer (1904a). 
 The true Spalax does not occur in the locality given. From such a
 
 40 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 host as this rodent it is altogether unlikely that the parasite was 
 Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 A writer in the Veterinarian (1855<*) states that Cwnurus cerebralis 
 is found in the brain of the sheep, ox, horse, pig, and man. There 
 is no citation of authorities or cases to back the assertion, and it is 
 evident that the pig is included here through error. Kolster's ( 1803a) 
 doubtful case has already been discussed. 
 
 Fuchs (1859a) lists the gid parasite from the sheep, cow, and 
 horse, specifying the brain and spinal cord in all cases. It seems 
 quite evident that there was nothing but the possibility of its occur- 
 rence in the spinal cord of the cow to justify this statement, and as 
 no record of such an occurrence seems to have been made until half 
 a century later, this statement may be rejected. 
 
 It has already been pointed out (p. 31) that Von Nathusius's case, as 
 given by Leisering (1862a), who reported it, was one of subcuta- 
 neous coenurus in the sheep. Pagenstecher ( 1877a), Moniez ( 1880a), 
 Leuckart (1886d), and Railliet (1893a) have erred in reporting this 
 from the calf or ox. Von Linstow (1878a) has perhaps followed 
 Pagenstecher in listing C. cerebralis from under the skin in the cow. 
 
 Neumann ( 1888a) devotes a paragraph to gid in the goose, quoting 
 Hering's (ISGloO case, and stating that the tumor found on the brain 
 was considered as a dead and atrophied hydatid. As a matter of 
 fact, Hering says that a mass without membranous structure, as is 
 often the case in shriveled bladderworms, was found in the left 
 hemisphere of the cerebrum, but nowhere a hydatid. 
 
 Railliet (1893a) states that the coenurus found by Heincke in the 
 eye of a horse is usually referred to Ccenurus cerebralis. Heincke 
 (1882a), according to a secretary's abstract, found a bladderworm 
 in the eye of a foal. Under the microscope the worm showed a hook 
 circlet. There is nothing to indicate that the cestode was a coenurus, 
 and as the description would fit Cysticercus cellulosse, known as a 
 parasite of the eye and of the horse, it seems more reasonable to con- 
 sider it as this than to assume, contrary to the evidence of the one 
 circlet of hooks, that we had here a coenurus in an organ nowhere 
 authentically recorded as a site of C. cerebrali, and in a host which 
 is none too certainly listed as a host of coenurus. Neumann (18SSa) 
 considers Heincke's form a cysticercus. 
 
 Hassall (1898a), in a list of hosts and parasites, records Ccenurus 
 cerebralis from the sanbur, Cervus unicolor. As no authority is 
 given, and as no such record is to be found, the case appears to be an 
 error. 
 
 Similarly, Vaullegeard's (1901a) record of the same parasite from 
 the eye of the cow and of the antelope is without authority or record 
 of cases and is rejected as improbable and devoid of evidence.
 
 OCCURRENCES OF ADULT MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 41 
 
 THE OCCURRENCES OF THE ADULT MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 
 
 So far as the writer is aware, the dog is the only known host of the 
 adult Multiceps multiceps. Von Linstow (1878a) lists Tsenia ccenu- 
 rus from Canis lagopus, but the three authorities referred to by him 
 in this connection, Diesing (1864a and 1864b), Leuckart (1856a), and 
 Krabbe (1865e), do not mention it. Railliet (1893a) states that 
 Mobius found T. ccenurus in Vulpes lagopus, but no reference is 
 given, and I have been unable to verify this statement. Hence the 
 blue fox must be considered a doubtful host of Multiceps multiceps. 
 
 Ilering (1873a) fed a common red fox, Canis vulpes, with larval 
 Multiceps multiceps on three occasions and once fed two Cysticercus 
 tenuicollis. The fox passed numerous proglottids, but when finally 
 killed post-mortem examination showed only three tapeworms 2 to 3 
 inches long. According to Hering, these were T. ccenurus. They 
 seemed to be when compared with other specimens on naked-eye 
 examination. Further, the fox had been fed for a year and a half 
 on horse meat, and three tapeworms could not have arisen from two 
 cysticerci. However, there were 42 to 48 hooks instead of 28 to 36, 
 and the large hooks measured 0.65 mm. long. Such a hook measure- 
 ment is four times the average for Multiceps multiceps, and if cor- 
 rectly given would make it quite certain that the cestode in question 
 was not M. multiceps. The uncertainty is such that Canis vulpes 
 must be considered a doubtful host of M. multiceps in this case. 
 
 Braun (1894a) gives a reference to Fiirstenburg (1858a), not avail- 
 able to the writer, and states that Fiirstenburg fed Co&nurus cere- 
 bralis and Cysticercus tenuicollis to dogs and foxes and recovered 
 tapeworms 45 to 50 inches long from the dogs and one-fourth to 7 
 inches long from the foxes. It is uncertain from this statement 
 whether the tapeworms in the foxes included Tsenia ccenurus or not. 
 
 All other statements that the fox is a host of this parasite appear 
 to be mere assumption, without case or authority to support them. 
 
 The assertion or assumption that the wolf is a host of M. multiceps, 
 made by Kiichenmeister (1853e), Von Siebold (1854b), Bourcier 
 (1859a), Gervais and Van Beneden (1859b), Baillet (1866b), and 
 numerous others, is likewise without cases or authority to support it, 
 and the wolf can not even be listed as a doubtful host so far as the 
 records go. In view of the close relationship of wolves to the dog, 
 however, it is very probable that they may serve as hosts of the 
 adult gid parasite. 
 
 Equally devoid of basis, so far as actual records are concerned, 
 are the claims made or suggested for the martin by Von Siebold 
 (1854b), Putz (1882), and Dewitz (1892b), for the coyote by Cur- 
 tice (1890c), Burch (1893a), and Shaw (1901a), and for the polecat 
 byDewitz(1892b).
 
 42 
 
 THE G1D PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 liailliet (1893a) states that he has been unable to infect the cat. 
 
 The writer has personally examined tapeworms from coyotes and 
 other wolves trapped in Montana, but has not found M. muUiceps. 
 Doctor McClure, in a letter of December 5, 1906, to Doctor Melvin, 
 says he has examined two coyotes in Montana and found no intestinal 
 parasites. 
 
 The following list includes all records found of the occurrence of 
 the adult MuUiceps multiceps not produced by feeding experiments 
 and many of the cases where it has been produced by experiment. 
 In the case of the latter some effort has been made to avoid duplica- 
 tion, due to translations, later editions, etc. The list does not include 
 those cases where the occurrence of the parasite is merely claimed. 
 
 List of recorded occurrences of the adult Multiceps multiceps in the dog. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Germany 
 
 Von Siebold 1862a 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 Do 
 
 Kiichenmeister 18538 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 
 Haubner 1854b 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 
 Von Siebold 1854b 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 
 Kiichenmeister 1855f 
 
 By experiment; first trihedral specimen. 
 
 (?) 
 
 Fiirstenburg 1858a . . . 
 
 By experiment; according to Braun (1894a). 
 
 Germany 
 
 Bering 1859a 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 France 
 
 Baillet 1859b 
 
 Do. 
 
 England 
 
 Gamgee 1859a 
 
 Do. 
 
 France 
 
 Pouchet and Verrier 1862b. . 
 
 Do. 
 
 Denmark 
 
 Krabbe 1862a 
 
 Found in 4 out of 185 dogs. 
 
 France 
 
 Milne-Edwards and Vail- 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 Denmark 
 
 lant 1863a. 
 Krabbe 1865d . . 
 
 Found in 5 out of 500 dogs. 
 
 Iceland 
 
 do ... 
 
 Found in 18 out of 100 dogs. 
 
 Faroe Islands 
 
 do 
 
 Rare. 
 
 England 
 
 Cobbold 18670 
 
 By experiment; never otherwise. 
 
 Germany... 
 Italy 
 
 Bering 1873a 
 Perroncito 1877cc 
 
 By experiment. 
 Do. 
 
 France 
 
 Bertolus and Chauveau 1879a 
 
 Found in 1 out of 84 dogs. 
 
 Germany 
 
 Leuckart 1880b 
 
 By experiment; a trihedral specimen and 1 with geni- 
 
 Do .... 
 
 Schone 1886a.. . 
 
 talia reversed. 
 Found in 1 out of 100 dogs. 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 Zschokke 1887a 
 
 Found in 3 out of 177 dogs. 
 
 France 
 
 Neumann 1888a 
 
 Not stated. 
 
 Germany 
 
 Deflke 1891a 
 
 Found in 1 out of 200 dogs; also by experiment. 
 
 United States. 
 
 Curtice 1892g 
 
 This is an error; see p. 21. 
 
 Do 
 
 Ward 18%b 
 
 Ward (1897b) and Stiles (1898a) think this is M. seri- 
 
 Germany 
 
 Lehner 1897a 
 
 alis. 
 Found in 4 dogs. 
 
 Italy 
 
 Calamida 1901C . 
 
 Not stated. 
 
 Scotland 
 Germany 
 
 Lawl903a 
 Johne 1904f 
 
 By experiment in 18C4 or 1865; date and place fur- 
 nished me in personal communication of July 2, 
 1909. 
 By experiment; a trihedral specimen. 
 
 Australia 
 
 Brown 1902a 
 
 Not available; cited from Sweet 1909a. 
 
 United States 
 
 Balll909a 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 France 
 
 Henry 1909a 
 
 Dog died of intestinal obstruction due to mass of Mul- 
 
 United States 
 
 Taylor and Boynton 1910a... 
 
 ticeps mvMiceps. 
 One specimen said to have been produced by feeding 
 
 Do 
 
 Hall 19100 
 
 cocnurus. 
 This article. 
 
 
 
 
 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GID. 
 
 In the seventeenth century Scultetus (1672a) notes that gid was 
 common enough then in Germany to be known among the peasantry 
 under the name of "Wirbling." In the eighteenth century Wepfer 
 (1724<r) says it was a common disease of cattle in Switzerland. 
 Maillet ( 1836a) says it is more common in southern than in northern
 
 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GID. 43 
 
 France. Von Siebold (1854b) states that gid is not rare in cattle in 
 south Germany, especially Bavaria, but that it is scarcely known in 
 north Germany, and Ziirn (1882o-) says it causes great loss among 
 sheep in south Germany. Krabbe (1865d) found the adult parasite 
 very common in dogs in Iceland, and the gid disease must have been 
 very common, as he says, for the cystic stage is much more commonly 
 found than the adult. Cobbold (1867o) says the disease is not 
 important in England, but is in Hungary, though later Heatley 
 ( 1884<r) says that gid is very common in England. Wernicke ( 1886a) 
 states that the parasite is viewed with alarm in the Argentine Repub- 
 lic. Moller ( 1891 a) says coenurus is common in cattle at the Salzburg 
 slaughterhouses, and is not rare in Steiermark, Karnten, Tyrol, Bu- 
 kownia, andDalmatia. Scheben (1910o r ) saysthat gid is an old trouble 
 in German Southwest Africa, often becoming conspicuous by its dam- 
 age to sheep breeding, and now and then occurring as an epizootic. 
 
 It will be seen from the above that while gid enjoys a wide distri- 
 bution, there are some districts which appear to favor the disease, and 
 in these places there is a constant and considerable economic loss from 
 the disease. How great that loss is may be judged from a few figures. 
 
 Youatt (1834a) says that at least 900,000 sheep die annually of gid 
 in France. (Most authors quote Youatt as saying a million sheep, 
 but I have not found this statement.) Belhomme ( 1838a) says that 
 in some years gid attacks one-fifth to one-fourth of a flock. Bar- 
 thelemy (1839<r) says not less than one-fifth of the lambs suffer 
 from gid in France. Reynal ( 1852or) notes the loss of 50 out of a 
 flock of 110 lambs from this disease, and Clok (1868o-) notes Kuers's 
 case, where 200 out of 400 died of gid. Reynal ( 1857a) states that gid 
 attacks from one-tenth to more than one-fourth of the sheep in some 
 places. Von Siebold (1854b) says gid kills more than 10 per cent in 
 some flocks. Clok (186800 says the average yearly loss from gid is 
 5 to 6 per cent, and that in Germany it may kill 70 per cent of the 
 lambs. Heitzmann ( 1868a) says that at Rohrdorf 50 to 60 head of 
 cattle die in some years. Dixon ( 18830-) says that before the fencing 
 in of sheep runs began in South Australia it was not unusual for 2 
 per cent of the hoggets to die of "crankiness," or gid. Neumann 
 (1892a) states that Gasparin put the loss in Germany at 15 per 1,000 
 the first year, 5 the second, 2 the third, and 1 the fourth. Armatage 
 (1895) says of gid: "The annual losses are about 10 per cent. It 
 always prevails in some districts, particularly in Scotland." Not 
 long ago Penberthy (1906oO noted a case in England where 300 
 out of 400 lambs died of gid inside of four months. Numan ( 1850b) 
 says that gid is not as common in Holland as in some countries, and 
 claims that Tessier put the loss in France at 5 per cent, and that Kuers 
 in 1840 stated the loss in Germany as no less than this. Diem ( 19060-) 
 points out that with existing values gid in cattle causes an appreciable
 
 44 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 loss, and notes instances where the values of cattle successfully oper- 
 ated on increased over their slaughter value as giddy animals from 35 
 and 55 to 485 marks. Vollrath (1905a) states that during the winter 
 and spring of 1904-5 there were one or two cases weekly among 
 cattle at Uttenweiler. Pfab (1910^) notes two cases where cattle 
 breeders lost an entire year's increase ; in one case 8 animals out of 
 8, and in another 12 out of 12. He records a total of 58 operations 
 on cattle in the years 1903 to 1909, inclusive, with 34 cures. The 
 figures already given for the United States, and the writer's personal 
 investigation in Montana, show losses of 2 or 3 to 10 per cent among 
 some Montana flocks, and such a loss in a State where sheep are rated 
 by the Bureau of Statistics of the United States Department of 
 Agriculture at $4.20 a head is worth considering. It appears that 
 the loss in Montana amounts to SI 0,000 in some years, and is at all 
 times a steady drain on the flocks. 
 
 It is evident from these figures that gid is really a dangerous and 
 important disease. It has held its own for centuries in civilized 
 Europe. Nearly a century ago, Bosc (1816a) said it was notable for 
 the loss of sheep which it occasioned. Later Eschricht (1840b) 
 speaks of it as a plague. Kuers in 1840, according to Numan ( 1850b), 
 classed it as one of the three most important diseases of lambs. 
 Eschricht (1841g) says it "often rages * * * as a virulent conta- 
 gion." Clok ( 1868<r) says it may be regarded as producing the greatest 
 comparative loss of all sheep diseases. Van Beneden(1889a) says " The 
 coenurus of the sheep is a true calamity when it spreads in a country." 
 Dewitz (1892b) says gid is the most important parasitic disease of sheep 
 around Berlin. In Germany the Government was trying to stamp 
 out the disease before the middle of the last century, and Kuchen- 
 meister was working under a government grant when he demon- 
 strated the complete life cycle of the parasite in 1853. 
 
 The sheep is conspicuous for its comparative freedom from bac- 
 terial diseases, a fact especially noticeable at this time, when the cow 
 and other animals are being called to account in the tuberculosis 
 campaign. But the sheep is equally conspicuous for its suscepti- 
 bility to animal parasites, and of these the gid parasite is one of 
 the most deadly. In this country gid is not as widespread as infec- 
 tion with the stomach worm, Hsemonchus contortus, nor is it so gen- 
 eral throughout the flocks it attacks as scab. At the same time, 
 the stomach worm at its worst can not claim anything like the 
 approximate 100 per cent lethality of the gid parasite, and the 
 scab parasite is readily eliminated by a rather simple routine treat- 
 ment, not comparable to the delicate and uncertain surgical treat- 
 ment necessary to relieve a sheep of the brain parasite. Unlike 
 
 oGrop Reporter, U. S. Department of Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 2, February, 1910.
 
 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GID. 45 
 
 bacteria, animal parasites show little preference in attacking weak 
 or poor animals, and gid probably selects its victims oftener from 
 strong, vigorous sheep and with less regard to the care given them 
 than even the stomach worm or the scab parasite. 
 
 Neumann (1888a) and many others, previously and since, state 
 that in general giddy animals should be butchered in the first stage 
 of gid, as the meat is still good. In the case of valuable animals, an 
 operation should be undertaken if indicated by favorable symptoms. 
 He also urges that sheep affected with spinal gid should always be 
 killed. His advice is perhaps as good as could be given. In general, 
 the greater value of cattle, as Piitz ( 1882<*) has noted, would justify 
 an operation oftener than sheep values would. This is especially 
 true since the wool value of the living sheep is considerably less 
 than the dairy value of the living cow. The figures already quoted 
 from Diem (1906or) show the value of successful operations. Opera- 
 tion is, of course, especially indicated in the case of breeding animals. 
 We know of no adequate medicinal treatment for gid, and experi- 
 ments along this line have so far been unsuccessful. (See Hall, 1909 or 
 and Moussu, 1910or.) 
 
 It seems that animals affected with gid seldom get to the larger 
 slaughterhouses, although F. Braun (1906a) says he has often found 
 it in meat inspection of cattle. Edelmann (1896a) says Ccenurus 
 cerebralis is ordinarily unimportant in meat inspection, but that in 
 Hesse and Sachsen-Meiningen the meat of giddy animals is to be 
 held as depreciated in value or worthless, according to the degree of 
 the disease and the condition of the carcass. Carreau and Rousseau 
 (1909a) give directions for detecting giddy sheep in abattoir inspec- 
 tion in France. Lloyd (1909'), in an article on meat inspection in 
 England, lists C&nurus cerebralis as one of the most common larval 
 cestode parasites involved in meat inspection, and Clarke (1907a), 
 as already noted, says he has met many cases of gid in sheep at the 
 slaughterhouses in England. Moreau (1909'), in an article on meat 
 inspection, gives the methods for detection of the gid parasite and lists 
 animals so infected for partial condemnation. 
 
 Bourrier, Charpentier, and Lafourcade ( 1884a) only found the gid 
 parasite once after five and a half years at the Villette abattoir, in 
 spite of a careful examination of the brains of the 18,000 to 20,000 
 cattle that were slaughtered there monthly. Schone (1886a) only 
 found it once among 8,962 sheep at Chemnitz. 
 
 From a legal standpoint, gid constitutes an impairment of contract 
 in cattle sales in some places in Europe, according to Semmer ( 1885c), 
 who gives this period as 14 days in Nassau and Thurgau, 15 days in 
 Canton St. Gallen, and 31 days in Canton Schaffhausen. These 
 periods are too short, as Semmer notes. Gerlach (1872a), who gives 
 the same figures, says the period should be three months, but states
 
 46 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 that such a fixed period can be dispensed with on the ground that 
 only an occasional breeding ram comes up for consideration, and 
 especially because we are in a position from a scientific standpoint 
 to render a correct judgment on any concrete case. Heusinger 
 (1853a) states that in the "Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales" 
 the law governing impairment of contract allows three days for the 
 development of "dera," or vertigo, in sheep, cattle, and horses. 
 I am unable to state whether this covers cases of gid or not. 
 
 ALLEGED CAUSES OF GID. 
 
 Before the gid parasite was known as the cause of gid various 
 theories were advanced to account for the disease, and after the 
 parasite was known to be the cause many theories were advanced 
 to account for its presence. Nor did the proposal of new theories 
 cease after Kuchenmeister (1853e) had demonstrated the parasite's 
 life history. Below are cited the various theories found by the writer, 
 only one authority being assigned for any given theory. 
 
 Stier (1776a) discredits the theories that gid is due to insect 
 larvae in nose, to inflammation, to stagnation of blood, or to hot days 
 followed by cold nights. 
 
 Gericke (1805^) considers gid as due to an accumulation of fluid 
 in the head from hypersecretion of glands injured by blows on the 
 animal's head. 
 
 Youatt (18340-) opposes the theories ascribing the disease to poi- 
 sonous plants, delay in docking, to hoarfrost, apoplexy, or to weak- 
 ness of meninges; also Hogg's theory of gid as due to the injection of 
 fluid from the central canal of the spinal cord into brain. 
 
 Maillet (1836a) notes the idea that gid in cattle was due to heavy 
 yokes. 
 
 Tschudi (1837a) has a footnote, signed Leuckart, which notes that 
 gid occurs in unhorned sheep and that certain formative material 
 should go into the horns the first year, or, failing that, the high 
 blood pressure favors cyst production. 
 
 Schellhase (ISSOrr) objects to the theory of cachexia and malnu- 
 trition as causes of gid and proposes the opposing theory that the 
 heightening of the vegetative life of sheep by suppression of activity 
 in the period of youth causes a superfluity of material which gives 
 rise to worms. 
 
 Eschricht ( 1840b) favors the idea that bad feeding and wet meadows 
 give rise to gid. 
 
 Blacklock (1841 a) adopts a theory, credited by him to Hogg in 
 1812, that gid is due to the back of the sheep being chilled. 
 
 Pluskal (1844) quotes the following theories of spinal gid: That 
 it is due to chilling, metastasis, rheumatic-toxic trouble, too much 
 jumping, excessive stretching of hip ligaments, and feebleness of the 
 ram.
 
 ALLEGED CAUSES OF GID. 47 
 
 Numan (1850b) notes that gid has been referred to bad food and 
 water, Colchicum autumnale, Allium vineale, Ranunculus flammula, 
 an adder, damp stalls, cutting teeth, and temperature variation. 
 
 Reynal (1858a) thinks that gid is due to heredity or the breeding 
 of too young animals. 
 
 Gamgee (1859a) cites Navieres's theory that a fly perforated the 
 sheep's skull and deposited eggs. 
 
 Davaine (1860a) mentions the theory of gid as due to precocious 
 obesity. 
 
 Dun (1864or) puts forth a common mixture of truth and error, 
 rather than a theory, when he says that sheep pick up the eggs or larvae 
 of tapeworms dropped by dogs, rabbits, or sheep, and that the ova 
 of flukes also cause gid. 
 
 Fiirstenburg ( 1865b) condemns Mahnke's theory that gid parasite 
 eggs get into the blood and are destroyed, the dissolved product 
 subsequently uniting with the egg or semen of the host, thus forming 
 a fetus which later becomes the parasite. 
 
 Vollrath ( 1905a) states that in advising farmers to have their cattle 
 operated on for gid he met with marvelous causes for the disease, and 
 this, too, in Germany where the knowledge of the etiology and 
 prophylaxis of the disease has coexisted with the disease for half a 
 century. It is not, therefore, surprising that, according to Doctor 
 Treacy, of this Bureau, in a letter of June 5, 1907, the sheepmen of 
 Montana have been classing the gid trouble as loco, poison weed, 
 water on the brain, grub in the head, etc., "and have not paid any 
 attention to the destruction of the animals that have died." 
 
 NAMES APPLIED TO GID AND GIDDY ANIMALS. 
 
 The wide distribution of gid and the peculiarity of its symptoms 
 have led to its receiving a great number of popular names in various 
 languages. In the following lists these names, together with the 
 medical names, have been arranged in chronological order under each 
 country. Where the name is applied to a giddy sheep instead of to 
 the disease it is indicated by an asterisk (*), and where the term 
 applied is an adjective it is indicated by a dagger (f). Spinal gid is 
 indicated thus (). This list is necessarily incomplete, especially 
 as regards .terms used in Asia, from which continent no records of 
 gid are available, although the disease probably occurs there. 
 
 The authority cited for a name will often, but not always, be the 
 one found using it first. In every case the question of the propriety 
 of using the word to denote gid, or infection with Multiceps multiceps, 
 must be referred to the authority cited. 
 
 GERMANY. Rolfinck 1656a, Vertigo; Scultetus 1672a, Wirbling; Guetebruckl766^; 
 Drehnigkeit, Dummlichkeit, Taubsucht, Verruckung der Sinnen; Batsch 1786a,* Dreher,
 
 48 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 *Seegler; Gmelin 1790a, Drehen, Springen; Stier 1776a, }drehende; Blooh 1782a, 
 Drehkrankheit, *Springer, *Segler; Frenzel 1794a, ^albern, Damischseyn, Drehlinge, 
 Drehsucht, Dummheit, ^elbisch, Irregehen, Kreislauf, Ldppischseyn, Ringlichtwerden, 
 Schwindel, Seglen, Taumeln, Traben, Verruckung, Wurflichtseyn; Rohlwes 181 3a, 
 *Dahmeler, *Ringldufer, *Traber; Numan 1850b, Dummsein, Eibischwerden, Kopf- 
 krankheit,Ringldufen, Ringlicht; Hering 1853<r, Dippelkrankheit, Dipplichkeit; Reynal 
 1854b, *Wurfler; Spinola 1858b, *Irrlinger, *Propheten, *Schwindler, *Seitlinge; Blu- 
 menbach 1802a, Queesenkopfe; Pluskal 1844<r, Drehe, gebrochenes Kreuz, \Onub- 
 berkrankheit, Hydrocephalus hydatideus, ^Hy drops hydatibus medullas, spinalis, Hydrops 
 hydatideus ovium, Kreuzdrehe, \Kreuzlahme, Tabes dorsalis, Traberkrankheit; Kiich- 
 enmeister 1855f, Dreh-Krankheit; Gurlt 1831a, Atrophia medullse spinalis; Erdt 1870a, 
 *Reitbahndreher, *Zeigerdreher; Gerlach 1872a, Kollern; Piitz 1882(T, *Kreuzdreher, 
 *Kreuzschlager, *Taumler;M6lleT 1891a, Drehwurmkrankheit; Friedberger u. Frohner, 
 1904<r, Blasenschwindel, Drehbewegung, Kopfdrehe, Kreisbewegung, Manegebewegung, 
 Narrischsein, Quesenkopf, Reitbahnbewegung, Rollbewegung, *Schwinder, Taumelsucht, 
 Tolpischsein, Wdlzbewegung, Zeigerbewegung; Braun, F. 1906(r, fddmisch; Diem 1906o-, 
 \wiirfig; Worbs 1909<r, ^wurflig; Pfab 1910O-, Coenurus-Krankheit, 
 
 FRANCE. Bloch 1788a, sauteuse, tourneuse; Moorcroft 1792a, tournoiement, vertige; 
 Bosc 1816a, tournis; Carrere 1826O', lourd; Numan 1850b, *toumeurs; Reynal 1857a, 
 avortin, *cinglew, lourderie, *trotteur, *vmlier; Cruzel 1869a, avertin; Benion 1874a, 
 *portant au vent, ^paraplegic hydatique; Neumann 1892a, etourdissement, hydrocephale, 
 tournis lombaire, vertigo; Armatage 1895, etourdi, eturdi. 
 
 ENGLAND. Moorcroft 1792a, gid, turn; Home 1795a, staggers; Turton 1806<r, dunt, 
 rickets; Schulling 1821-, sturdy; Youatt 1834o', gig, goggles^turnsick; Veterinarian 
 1855<r, vertigo; Spooner 1888a, blob-whirl, giddiness, sturdy-gig; Neumann 1892a, 
 hydatic paraplegia, hydatido-cephalus, hydatid on the brain, ^lumbar gid, ^medullary gid, 
 punt, turnside; Armatage 1893O-, hydrocephalus hydatidseus; Armatage 1895, ccenurus 
 cerebralis, hydatids; Penberthy 1897c, cosnurosis; Cave 1903fr, pothery. 
 
 LAPLAND. Hoffberg 1759a, Ringsjuka. 
 
 IRELAND. Bellingham 1844a, staggers. 
 
 SCOTLAND. M'Call 1857a, sturdy. 
 
 HOLLAND. Numan 1850b, *Draaijers, Draaizickte, *Dravers, Kruislamheid, Schuur- 
 ziekte, *Zeilers; Blumenbach 1802a, Draaikoppen. 
 
 ITALY. Fontana 1784a, folie, *fols, male vertiginoso, storno; Neumann 1892a, ver- 
 tigine idatiginosa, vertigine per cenuro. 
 
 DENMARK. Krabbe 1864h, Dreiesyge. 
 
 CAPE COLONY. Hellier 1894a, Mal-Kop; Buckley 1904, Malkopziete, Maikop Ziekte; 
 Hutcheon 1904-, gid, sturdy, turnsick; Gilchrist 1909or, \lumbar-gid. % 
 
 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC. Armatage 1895, ^moonstruck; Monfallet 1899o-, locura 
 de las ovejas. 
 
 SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Dixon 1883o-, crankiness, tumsick. 
 
 CHILE. Monfallet 1899o-, cenurosis, paraplejia hidatica, torneo, torneo encefalico, 
 torneo lumbar. 
 
 SPAIN. Monfallet 1899'cr, modorra; Espejo y del Rosal 1905O-, torneo. 
 
 SWITZERLAND. Retzius 1790a, ^sturmig. 
 
 UNITED STATES. Livingston 1809<r, dizziness, staggers; Clok 1847n-, water in the head; 
 Verrill 1870d, gid, sturdy, vertigo, water-brain; Tellor 1879a, hydatid in the brain, hydatid 
 of the brain, turnsick; Crutchfield I880a, hydatid on the brain; Killebrew 1880o-, hyda- 
 tids; Stewart 1880a, giddiness, turnside; Powers 1887a, blind staggers; Burch 1895<r, 
 turnsids; Sommer 1896c, turnstick; Campbell & Lacroix 1907O-, turn sickness; letter 
 of Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, May 21, 1907, ^locoed. 
 
 The writer finds that in Montana gid is known as loco, lamb loco, bug in the head, 
 and blind staggers, and that giddy sheep are commonly said to be crazy.
 
 COMMON NAMES OF GID. 49 
 
 To the above list might be added \epct voaof, the Greek for 
 "the sacred disease," epilepsy, by which Hippocrates (1825 r ) desig- 
 nates various forms of vertigo in man and animals, and under which 
 term it is likely that gid in sheep was known. There should also be 
 added the Latin term, "tornatio," used by Acharius (1782) but not 
 assigned to any country. 
 
 Unless an author specifies otherwise, it is assumed that a term used 
 by him for gid was in use in the country from which or of which he 
 wrote. This accounts for the terms listed from the United States 
 at a time when it is doubtful whether there was any gid in this country. 
 
 As the present writer has not been in a position to check all errors 
 of spelling as such and can not guarantee that they were not local 
 variations, all names are included as found, even where it seems fairly 
 clear that there is an error, as in the case of "turnstick" of Sommer 
 (1896c). 
 
 The term "locoed" is included on the strength of Doctor Gary's 
 statement that in his opinion it includes in Montana sheep that are 
 actually suffering from gid, and on the evidence of Dr. E. T. Davison, 
 who reports under date of December 21, 1907, that he has examined 
 several sheep reported as "locoed" and found them all infested with 
 the gid parasite. The writer has found that giddy sheep are very 
 commonly referred to in Montana as locoed, and in one place, where 
 no loco weed or loco disease existed, gid was known as lamb loco. 
 
 Such a term as "ringsjuka" is included on the possibility, discussed 
 elsewhere, of the disease in question being gid. 
 
 The term "moonstruck," referred to the Argentine Republic by 
 Armatage (1895), is presumably a translation. 
 
 COMMON NAMES OF THE GID PARASITE. 
 
 The following list is not complete, but covers the commoner names 
 used in the more important countries, one authority for the name 
 being cited: 
 
 GERMANY. Blumenbach 1802a, Die Queese; Gurlt 1831a, Gemeinschwanz, Vielkopf; 
 Kiichenmeister 1855f, Schaafquese; May 1855a, Gehirn- Vielkopf; Leuckart 1863a, 
 Drehwurm; Erdt 1870a, Ccenurusblase; Ziirn 1882<r, Gehirnblasenbandwurm, Gehirnbla- 
 senwurm, Gehirnquese, Quesenbandwurm. 
 
 FRANCE. D'Arboval 1827a, ccenure cerebrale; Von Siebold 1852a, Ver du tournis; 
 Neumann 1888a, cenure cerebrale. 
 
 ENGLAND. Moorcroft 1792a, social hydatid; Cobbold 1874c, gid hydatid, many headed 
 hydatid; Cobbold 1874v, gid-hydatid tapeworm. 
 
 HOLLAND. Blumenbach 1802a, Herszen-Blaas-Worm; Numan 1850b, Vielkop- 
 Blaasworm der Hersenen. 
 
 CAPE COLONY. Gilchrist 1909<r, water-bags. 
 
 UNITED STATES. Verrill 1870d, water brain; Stiles 1898a, gid bladder worm. 
 
 A Scotch sheepman in Montana refers to the gid parasite as the "sturdy bag" and 
 states that it is commonly known by this name in Scotland.
 
 50 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 The following table of synonymy is based on over 600 references 
 and is probably very nearly complete. The essential discussion 
 of the correct names of the parasite has already been given under 
 the historical sketch : 
 
 Genus MULTICEPS Goeze 17823. 
 
 1782. Multiceps Goeze 1782a. 
 
 1782. Cerebrina Acharius 1782; erroneously substituted for Multiceps. 
 
 1782. Txnia vesicularis Goeze 1782a, pro parte. 
 
 1786. Ilydatigena Goeze 1782 of Batsch 1786a, pro parte. 
 
 1788. Vesicaria Schrank 1788a. 
 
 1790. Hydatula Abildgaard 1790, pro parte. 
 
 1798. Hydatis Virey 1798a, pro parte. 
 
 1800. Polycephalus Zeder 1800a; Multiceps renamed. 
 
 1808. Caenurus Rudolph! 1808a; Multiceps and Polycephalus renamed. 
 
 1815. Polycephops Rafinesque 1815a; Polycephalus renamed. 
 
 J818. Hydatidula Cloquet 1818a; misspelling for Hydatula. 
 
 1824. Caenurus Bremser 1824a, for Ccenurus. 
 
 1830. Coenureus Bory de St. Vincent 1830a; misprint for Ccenurus. 
 
 1830. Vesicularia Schrank of Bory de St. Vincent 1830a; Bory de St. Vincent 1830a 
 
 is author of Vesicularia; misspelling for Vesicaria. 
 
 1831. Ccenurs Gurlt 1831a; misprint for Ccenurus. 
 1844. Canurus Goodsir 1844g; misprint for Ccenurus. 
 
 1850. Txnia Goeze of Diesing 1850a; in synonymy of Ccenurus; Linnaeus 1758a is 
 
 author of Tsenia. 
 1850. Hydatula Batsch of Diesing 1850a; in synonymy; Abildgaard 1790 is author of 
 
 Hydatula. 
 
 [1870.] Coinurias McClure [1870rr]; misprint for Ccenurus. 
 1895. Cenurus Armatage 1895; misprint for Ccenurus. 
 1900. Cystotaenia R. Leuck. of Braun 1900a; error. 
 
 1902. Vermis Bloch 1782a of Sherborn 1902a. See discussion of synonymy. 
 1905. Ccencerus Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder 19055; misprint for Ccenurus. 
 1905. Csenurus Cuvier 1825a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; Bremser 1824a is author 
 
 of Caenurus. [Schinz, and not Cuvier (1825a), should be held responsible 
 
 for the use of this form. See discussion of synonymy.] 
 
 Species MULTICEPS MULTICEPS (Leske 17801) Hall igio. 
 
 1780. Txnia multiceps Leske 1780a. 
 1780. Vermis vesicularis socialis Bloch 1780a. 
 1782. Txnia vesicularis cerebrina Goeze 1782a. 
 1782. T. vesicularis, multiceps Acharius 1782. 
 
 1786. Ilydatigena cerebralis Batsch 1786a. 
 
 1787. Tcenia globuleux of Chabert 1787a, pro parte; misdetermination. 
 
 1787. Tenia globuleux of Chabert 1787a, pro parte; misdetermination. 
 
 1788. Vesicaria socialis (Bloch 1780a) Schrank 1788a. 
 1790. Tsenia cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Gmelin 1790a. 
 
 1790. Txnia. socialis (Bloch 1780a) Retzius 1790a; probably 1786a. 
 
 1790. Txnia cerebrina (Goeze 1782a) Retzius 1790a; probably 1786a. 
 
 1790. Txniae cerebrinae Retzius 1790a; probably 1786?. 
 
 1795. Txnia hydatigenia Home 1795a. 
 
 1795. Txnia hydatigena of Home 1795a; error. 
 
 1798. Hydatis cerebralis (Batsch 1768a) Virey 1798a.
 
 SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 51 
 
 1800. Tsenia visceralis multiceps Goeze (1782a) of Zeder 1800a; this combination should 
 
 be attributed to Zeder 1800a. 
 1800. Tsenia multiceps Goeze (1782a) of Zeder 1800a; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Leske 1780a. 
 
 1800. Tsenia hydatigcna Pallas (1766b) of Zeder 1800a; error. 
 1800. Tsenia cerebralis Syst. Nat. Linn. (1790) of Zeder 1800a;=Gmelin 1790a. 
 1803. Hydatula sodalis (Bloch 1780a) Schrank 1803a. 
 1803. Polycephalus ovinus Zeder 1803a. 
 
 1803. Polycephalus bovinus Zeder 1803a. 
 
 1804. Tccnia vesicularis cerebrina multiceps Goeze (1782a) of Laennec 1804a; this com- 
 
 bination should be attributed to Laennec 1804a. 
 
 1804. Toenia cerebralis Bruguiere of Laennec 1804a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Lsennec 1804a apparently; Bruguiere (1792a) uses Tsenia but does not 
 involve this species; Bruguiere (1791a) in the accessible copy has this part 
 in script and hence unreliable; form given is Tenia cerebral, unscientific. 
 
 1804. Hydatis cerebralis Bosc [1802a] of Laennec 1804a; this combination should be 
 attributed to Virey 1798a. 
 
 1804. Polycephalus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Laennec 1804a. 
 
 1808. Coenurus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Rudolphi 1808a. 
 
 1810. Hydatula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Rudolphi 1810a; this combination shoiild 
 be attributed to Rudolphi 1810a. 
 
 1810. Tsenia vesicularis Goeze (1782a) of Rudolphi 1810a; in synonymy; is a generic, 
 not a specific synonym. 
 
 1818. Hydatidula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Cloquet 1818a; this combination should 
 be attributed to Cloquet 1818a. 
 
 1818. Tsenia vesicularis cerebrina multiceps Goeze [1782a] of Cloquet 1818a; this combi- 
 nation should be attributed to Cloquet 1818a. 
 
 1825. C[senurus] cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Bremser 1824a. 
 
 [1828.] Cysticercus tenuicollis of Buzaringues [1828o-] in Reynal 1857a; misdetermi- 
 nation. 
 
 1831. Ccenurs cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Gurlt 1831a. 
 
 1833. Coenurus cerebralis Lamarck and Rudolphi of Rose 1833a; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Rudolphi 1808a. 
 
 1834. Cysticercus tenuicollis of Youatt 1834<r. 
 1834. Hydra hydratula Linnaeus of Youatt 1834 a. 
 1837. Polycephalus cocnurus Tschudi 1837a. 
 
 1837. Polycephalus cerebralis Cloquet (1818a) of Tschudi 1837a; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Laennec 1804a. 
 1844. Polycephalus cerebralis V. of Pluskal 1844n-; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Laennec 1804a. [V.= Virey?]. 
 1844. Tsenia vesicularis cerebralis G. of Pluskal 1844<T; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Pluskal 1844rr. [G.=Goeze?]. 
 1844. Hydatis cerebralis Bl. of Pluskal 1844<r; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Virey 1798a. [Bl.=Blumenbach?] 
 1844. Hydatis polystomos medullaris Pluskal 1844n-. 
 1844. " Tsenia cerebralis (Pennant, Turton)" of Bellingham 1844a; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Gmelin 1790a. 
 1848. Tcenia vesicularis Goeze 1782 of E. Blanchard 1848e; this combination should 
 
 be attributed to Laennec 1804a, apparently. 
 1848. Hydratula cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) E. Blanchard 1848e. 
 1850. Hidatula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Diesing 1850a; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Diesing 1850a. 
 
 1850. Ccenurus serialis Gervais (1847a) of Diesing 1850a et al; misdetermination. 
 1850. Hydatis cerebralis Blumenbach (1802a) of Numan 1850b; this combination should 
 
 be attributed to Virey 1798a.
 
 52 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 1850. Txnia hydatigena Fisscher (1788n-) of Numan 1850b; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Pallas 1766b. 
 1850. Tsenia vesicularis socialis Goeze (1782a) of Numan 1850b; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Numan 1850b. 
 1850. Polycephalus cerebralis, ovinus Zeder (1803a) of Numan 1850b; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Numan 1850b. 
 1850. Hydatis polystomos medullaris'M.uska.l (1844) of Numan 1850b: this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Pluskal 1844 ft. 
 1850. Polycephalus ovium Numan 1850b. 
 
 1850. Ilydatis facialis of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; Dupuy not available. 
 1850. Ccenurus cerebreux of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; Dupuy not available. 
 1850. TscniaglobuleuxChsibeTt of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; Dupuy not available. 
 1850. Hydatis cerebralis Lemark of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Virey 1798a. 
 
 1850. Polycephalus (Coenurus} cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Numan 1850b. 
 1850. Tsenia cerebralis, vesicularis von Siebold 1850a. 
 1852. Tsenia cerebralis Linne 1 of Reynal 1852Q-; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Gmelin 1790a. 
 1852. Polycephalus ovium Zeder (1803a) of Reynal 1852o-; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Numan 1850b. 
 
 1852. Tsenia multiplex Leuckart 1852b; a corruption of Tsenia multiceps. 
 
 1853. Tsenia cerebralis Linnaeus of Baird 1853a; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Gmelin 1790a. 
 1853. Hydatis cerebralis Bosc of Baird 1853a; this combination should be attributed to 
 
 Virey 1798a. 
 1853. Csenurus cerebralis Rud. of Baird 1853a; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Bremser 1824a. 
 1853. Tsenia coenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Kuchenmeister 1853e; first naming of strobila 
 
 form. 
 
 1853. Tsenise coenuri Kuchenmeister 1853e; plural of Tsenia coenurus. 
 
 1854. Tseniis ccenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Kuchenmeister 1854a; plural of Tsenia ccenurus. 
 1854. Tsenise coenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Kuchenmeister 1854<r; plural of Txnia canurus. 
 1854. Tenia ccenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Kuchenmeister 1854h; misprint for Tsenia 
 
 ccenurus. 
 
 1854. Tsenia solium of von Siebold 1854b; misdetermination. 
 1854. Tsenia serrata of von Siebold 1854b; misdetermination. 
 
 1854. T(senia) ccenures van Beneden 1854O-. 
 
 1855. Ccenurus serdalis Gervais (1847a) of Goldberg 1855a; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Goldberg 1855a; misdetermination and misprint. 
 
 1855. Hidatula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Goldberg 1855a; this combination should 
 be attributed to Diesing 1850a. 
 
 1855. Cysticercus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Goldberg 1855a; used only in genitive in 
 
 Latin article. 
 
 1856. Tsenia ccenurus v. Sieb. of Leuckart 1856a; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Kuchenmeister 1853e. 
 
 1856. T(senia) vesicularis cerebralis s. multiceps Goeze (1782a) of Leuckart 1856a; this 
 
 combination should be attributed to Leuckart 1856a; see Pluskal 1844. 
 
 1857. Tcenia cerebralis Linn, of Reynal 1857a; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Lsennec 1804a. 
 
 1857. Polycephalus ovinus Zider of Reynal 1857a; this combination should be attrib- 
 
 uted to Zeder 1803a. 
 
 1858. Tnia coenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Baillet 1858c; misspelling. 
 
 1859. Tfenia marginata Gotze of Fuchs 1859a; error. 
 
 1859. Tsena serrata R. of Hering 1859a; this combination should be attributed to 
 Hering 1859a; misdetermination, misprint.
 
 SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 53 
 
 1859. Tsenia e ccenuro Aut. of Bering 1859a*. 
 
 1859. Tosnia camurus (Tschudi 1837a) Keller 1859a; misspelling. 
 
 1860. " Echinococci" of Crisp 1860a; error. 
 
 1861. T(senia) ccenura Koeberl6 1861a; misprint. 
 1861. T(senia) ccenara Koeberl^ 1861a; misprint. 
 
 1861. C(ysticercus) ccenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Kceberle" 1861a. 
 
 1861. Tenia canurus van Beneden 1861a. 
 
 1863. Polycephalus cerebralis Numan of Diesing 1863b; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Lsennec 1804a. 
 1863. Cosnurus cerebralis ? leporis cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; in synonymy of 
 
 Tsenia ccenurus; not at present available, cited from Diesing 1864a, identical; 
 
 this combination should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 
 1863. Tsenia (Cystotsenia) ccenurus Leuckart 1863 of Diesing 1863b; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 
 1863. Tsenia serrata Siebold of Diesing 1863b; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Goeze 1782a; error. 
 1863. Tsenia coenuri cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Diesing 1863b; error. 
 1863. Tenia-serrata of Letort 1863a. 
 1863. Tsenia multiplex Gotze of Leuckart 1863a; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Leuckart 1852b. 
 
 1863. Hydatis polycephalus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Randall 1863a. 
 1866. Ccenurus cerebralis Kiich. of Baillet 1866a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Rudolphi 1808a. 
 1868. Cysticercus cxnurus Desmonceaux 1868a. 
 
 [1870.] Ccenurias cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) McClure [1870o-]; misspelling'. 
 [1870.] Tcenia solium of McClure [1870o-]; error. 
 
 [1870.] " Echinococcus, polymorphus or vetrinorium" of McClure [1870rr]; error. 
 1874. Tsenia ovilla of Bunion 1874a. 
 
 1877. Tsenia coenurus v. Sieb. of Pagenstecher 1877a; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Kiichenmeister 1853e. 
 
 1878. Ccenurus cerebalis von Linstow 1878a; misprint. 
 
 1879. Tsenia cenurus Teller 1879a; misprint. 
 
 1879. Tsenia csenurus (Desmonceaux 1868a) Bertolus et Chauveau 1879a. 
 
 1879. Toenia csenurus (Desmonceaux 1868a) Bertolus et Chauveau 1879a. 
 
 1880. Tsenia multiplex Goze of Leuckart 1880b; this combination should be attributed 
 
 to Leuckart 1852b. 
 
 1880. T(senia) visceralis; cerebrina Kiichenmeister 1880a. 
 
 1880. Verm, vesical. sodalis (Bloch 1780a) Kuchenmeister 1880a. 
 
 1880. Polycephalus granulosus Zeder of Kuchenmeister 1880a. 
 
 1880. Ccenurus cerebralis auct. of Moniez 1880a; this combination should be attributed 
 to Rudolphi 1808a. 
 
 1882. Tsenia csenurus Sieb. of de Lanessan 1882a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Bertolus et Chauveau 1879a. 
 
 1882. Csenurus serialis (Gervais 1847a) Perroncito 1882a; misspelling; misdetermina- 
 tion. 
 
 1882. Csenurus sserialis Gerv. of Perroncito 1882a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Perroncito 1882a; misspelling; misdetermination. 
 
 1882. Tasnia ccenurus canis Ziirn 1882-. 
 
 1882. Ccenurus cerebralis ovis Ziirn 1882O-. 
 
 1882. Ccenurus serialis Baillet of Ziirn 1882<r; this combination should be attributed 
 to Gervais 1847a; misdetermination. 
 
 1882. Cysticercus e Tsenia ccenur. Zflrn 1882n-. 
 
 1885. Tsenia ccenur. cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Reinitz 1885a. 
 
 1886. T[aenia] ccenure Brocchi 1886a.
 
 54 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 1887. Tenia cocunuruz Besnard 1887a; misspelling. [Mesnard 1887a is a review of 
 Besnard 1886a, not available to me.] 
 
 1893. T(aenia) ccenusus Burch 1893n-; misprint. 
 
 1894. Polycephalus ovis Braun 1894a. 
 
 1895. Cenurus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Armatage 1895. 
 
 1898. Vermis vesicularis socialis Bloch 1782 of Stiles 1898a; this combinat ion should be 
 
 attributed to Bloch 1780a. 
 
 1898. C(enuro) cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Bosso 1898<r. 
 1901 . C[ystolaenia] coenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Benham 1901a. 
 1901. Tenia casnurus (Desmonceaux 1868a) Perroncito 1901a. 
 
 1901. Taenia ccenurus Van Ben. of Vaullegeard 1901a; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to (Tschudi 1837a) Kuchenmeister 1853e. 
 
 1902. Ccenurus cerebralis bovis Mayr 1902a. 
 
 1903. T(aenia) casrunus Buysson 1903^; misprint. 
 
 1903. Ccenurus cerebrales Law 1903a; misprint. 
 
 1904. "T. [(Cystotsenia)] ccenurus Kuchenmeister of Leuckart 1853" of Stevenson 
 
 1904b; see Diesing 1863b. 
 
 1905. Taenia multiceps (Zeder 1800) Rudolphi 1802 of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 
 
 this combination should be attributed to Leske 1780a. 
 
 1905. Hydatis cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Blumenbach 1816a of Stiles and Stevenson 
 1905a; this combination should be attributed to Virey 1798a. 
 
 1905. Ccenurus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Cuvier 1825a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 
 this combination should be attributed to Rudolphi 1808a; form intended, 
 apparently, Casnurus cerebralis. 
 
 1905. " T. [(Cystotsenia)} ccenurus Kuchenmeister of Leuckart 1863" of Stiles and 
 Stevenson 1905a; see Diesing 1863b. 
 
 1905. Polycephalus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Lsennec 1812 of Stiles and Stevenson 
 1905a; this combination should be attributed to Laennec 1804a. 
 
 1905. "Hidatula cerebralis (Batsch) of Goldberg 1855a" of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 
 see Diesing 1850a. 
 
 1905. Multiceps socialis (Batsch 1786a) Stiles and Stevenson 1905a. 
 
 1905. Hydatigena socialis Batsch 1786a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; this combina- 
 tion should be attributed to Stiles and Stevenson 1905a. 
 
 1905. Cysticercus ccenurus (Kuchenmeister 1853) Koeberle' 1861a of Stiles and Steven- 
 son 1905a; this combination should be attributed to (Tschudi 1837a) Koeberl6 
 1861a. 
 
 1905. Taenia ccenurus j( Kuchenmeister 1853) v. Beneden 1861a of Stiles and Stevenson 
 1905a; this combination should be attributed to (Tschudi 1837a) Kiichen- 
 meister 1853e. 
 
 1905. Ccencerus cerebratis Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder 19055; misprint. 
 
 1908. Tenia cenurus (Teller 1879a) Germain 1908a. 
 
 1908. Taenia cerebrales (Law 1903a) Luckey 1908n-; misprint. 
 
 1909. T(aenia.) ccenurns Braun 1909; in Braun u. Ltihe 1909n-; misprint. 
 1909. Ccenurus eerebralis Braun 1909; in Braun u. Liihe 1909<r; misprint. 
 
 1909. Taenis ccenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Hall 1909rr; misprint. 
 
 1910. Taenia ccenuris Kildee 1910<r; misprint. 
 
 Acharius (1782) uses the form T. vesicularis multiceps; Cerebrina. 
 As Cerebrina is substituted for Multiceps, used in generic sense in 
 Goeze's (1782a) Tsenia vesicularis, cerebrina; Multiceps, it has been 
 credited as an erroneous generic synonym. 
 
 In crediting the genus Hydatis to Virey (1798a), the prior use of 
 the same word by Goeze (1782a) has been taken into consideration;
 
 SYNONYMY OP MULflCEPS MULTICEPS. 55 
 
 Goeze, however, does not use it generically, but merely as a common 
 noun, hence this word as used by him has no standing in nomencla- 
 ture. Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) in passing judgment on "Hydatis 
 Goeze 1782a," given by them in the synonymy of Echinococcus, state 
 in comment, "Very doubtful whether this is used in generic sense." 
 
 Goeze uses the word Hydatis to refer to water bladders, apparently 
 considered as nonparasitic, found in animal bodies; in fact, uses it 
 in just the sense in which Hippocrates and other Greeks used the 
 same word "udartf," meaning the same thing, a water bladder. 
 Goeze denotes by it substantially the same things that are included 
 in the genus Acephalocystis Lsennec (1804a), with the essential differ- 
 ence that the objects in question are not regarded as parasites, and 
 hence, in this case, not as animals. Therefore the word has no more 
 standing in nomenclature than the word "Wasserblase," which is 
 regularly used as its equivalent. Larval cestodes are constantly 
 referred to by Goeze in this work as "Eingeweidebandwurm"- or 
 "Blasenbandwurm," and the generic and specific names are summed 
 up in a section which does not include the word Hydatis and which 
 precedes any use of this word. The word Hydatis is used to denote 
 an object which is compared to or contrasted with a "Blasenband- 
 wurm." Thus he states that Tsenia hydatigena is very similar to 
 the "Wasserblasen (Hydatis)." Again, he states that the true 
 water bladders "die eigentlichen Wasserblasen (Hydatides)" are 
 very different from the bladders in which bladderworms, "Blasen- 
 wurmer," live. In his final use of the word he states that he found a 
 bladder, "Blase," in the liver of a pig. He adds that it was no 
 "Wasserblase oder Hydatis," for on opening it he found the worm 
 in it. If Hydatis is a genus at all in Goeze's work, it is a genus of 
 larval cestodes or "Blasenwiirmer." The references show that it is 
 specifically differentiated from such forms. 
 
 Sherborn (1902a) has also referred the genus Hydatis to Virey 
 (1798a). Virey calls it a genus and appends the generic characters. 
 
 Sherborn (1902a) has listed Vermis as a genus of Bloch (1782a). 
 Bloch's genus is Vermis vesicularis, with the three species socialis, 
 eremita, and teniseformis. It therefore appears that the genus Vermis 
 of Sherborn (1902a) must be regarded as an additional synonym of 
 Multiceps. 
 
 The writer attributes the form Tsenia (Cystotsenia) canurus to 
 Diesing (1863b), and C(ystotsenia) coenurus to Benham (190 la) for 
 the reason that so far as can be determined, the forms in question 
 are first used by these writers. Leuckart's (1863a) responsibility for 
 the form Oystotsenia ends with that form. The fact that he pro- 
 posed this as a subgenus may be taken to imply its application to the 
 forms falling within the definition of this subgenus, but such appli- 
 cation involves a certain judgment of cases which we can not postu-
 
 56 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 late as perfectly clear, and it is too much to suppose that Leuckart 
 should be held responsible for any or all forms involving the name 
 Cystotsenia when it may be that a given form is based on a judgment 
 or an error for which Leuckart would not care to be responsible. 
 When a writer proposes a new genus or subgenus he has the option of 
 also proposing the new combinations involved and assuming respon- 
 sibility for them, or of leaving such an act and its responsibility to 
 some one else and only assuming the responsibility for the genus 
 or subgenus proposed. 
 
 The reason for crediting the use of Coenurus to Schinz (see Cuvier 
 1825a) and not to Cuvier (1825a) is the same as the reason why Txnia 
 cerebralis is credited to Gmelin (1790a) and not to Linnaeus. Schinz 
 has used here forms not used in the French edition of 1817 of which 
 this is an emended translation, and it is obviously unfair to hold 
 Cuvier responsible for forms not used in the original article. 
 
 MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 It has already been pointed out (p. 38) that Lsennec (1804a) stated 
 that the gid parasite occurs in the sheep, the cow, and perhaps in the 
 rabbit, and that this reference to the gid parasite in the rabbit appears 
 to have been based on hunters' reports of gid in rabbits. It has also 
 been stated that Cloquet (1818a) included the rabbit as a host of 
 the gid parasite without reservation, but his statement appears to 
 be based on Lsennec's (1804a or 1812a) article and is therefore of no 
 value. Neither of these articles, then, can be considered as erroneous 
 records of Multiceps serialis under the name of Ccenurus cerebralis. 
 
 The first record of M. serialis is that of de Blainville (1828a) who 
 described a cyst, which he calls an Echinococcus, from the peritoneal 
 cavity of a wild rabbit. He noted the serial arrangement of the 
 heads, which afterwards was made the reason for the specific name, 
 and thought that it might be a new species, or might be E. veterinorum. 
 Despite de Blainville's decision that the form was probably EcJiino- 
 coccus, his article shows evidence of a misconception of that genus 
 and of errors of observation, and it is quite certain that the parasite 
 was Multiceps serialis. It is so considered by Gervais and van 
 Beneden (1859b) and by Railliet (1882a). 
 
 M. serialis is a widely distributed form, long considered as M. 
 multiceps or confused with that form by some writers. It is of less 
 economic importance than M. multiceps owing to its occurring in the 
 connective tissue and musculature of rodents instead of in the cen- 
 tral nervous system of wild and domestic ungulates, as is the case 
 with M. multiceps. 
 
 Five years after de Blainville's (1828a) record, Rose (1833a) noted 
 M. serialis in rabbits in England and stated that warreners, before
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 57 
 
 sending affected rabbits to market, punctured the tumor caused by 
 the parasite and squeezed out the fluid. Rose described the pro- 
 duction of daughter vesicles by budding, but did not find this or 
 any other feature a sufficient structural difference between this para- 
 site and the gid parasite to warrant making a new species. Later, 
 Rose (1844a) described a new case and discussed the cyst surround- 
 ing the parasite and the external budding of the latter. 
 
 Leblond (1837a) notes that Dr. Emmanuel Rosseau sent him a cyst 
 a little larger than a nut from between the spinal membranes of a 
 rabbit. Leblond identified the parasite as Ccenurus cerebralis. 
 
 Leblond's specimen was later examined by Gervais (1847a), who 
 makes a new species of it on the basis of the serial arrangement of 
 the heads and the long folded neck. From the first feature he 
 named it Ccenurus serialis. Railliet (1889o) refers this name to an 
 article intheDictionnaireUniverseld'HistoireNaturelle (v. 6,p. 729), 
 under date of 1845. This reference is correct for the date 1861, 
 but there appears to be no such reference for 1845, and it is possible 
 that Railliet has erred in giving this date. Gervais calls his form 
 Ccenurus serialis n. sp. in 1847, and it seems likely that this is the 
 date of its first description. Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) appear 
 to have followed Railliet in citing " C&nurus serialis Gervais, 1847a, 
 98; probably 1845, 729, not accessible to us." 
 
 Baillet (1858b) produced the adult tapeworm in the dog by feeding 
 the crcnurus from the rabbit, and described it but did not name it, 
 as both the adult and larva seemed very similar to the corresponding 
 forms of the gid parasite. Feeding experiments in which the attempt 
 was made to infect rabbits and sheep with the proglottids of the 
 adult tapeworm were not well carried out and showed nothing. 
 
 Later, Baillet (1863a) produced the tapeworm again and named 
 it Tsenia serialis. Proglottids with developed eggs were fed to 
 rabbits and produced the crcnurus. Ten attempts to infect rabbits 
 with the eggs of the adult Multiceps multiceps and five attempts to 
 infect sheep with the eggs of the adult Multiceps serialis failed. 
 Baillet gives a very full description of the adult and larval M, serialis. 
 
 Perroncito has stood out against the validity of this species. He 
 records (Perroncito, 1875a) a coenurus from a rabbit, and although he 
 finds a yellow color present which he does not find in the cerebral 
 coenuri of ruminants, he nevertheless considers that all cocnuri arise 
 from Txnia coenurus. Later, Perroncito (1882a) finds the only dif- 
 ference between the rabbit and sheep cosnuri to be in the formation 
 of daughter vesicles in the former, and still considers them the same 
 species. At a quite recent date (Perroncito, 1901a), this opinion is 
 still adhered to. The same opinion has been expressed even more 
 recently by Friedberger und Frohner (1904).
 
 58 
 
 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 A careful study of M. serialis was made by Reinitz (1885a), who 
 concluded that Lindemann's (1867a) Canurus lowzowi was M. 
 serialis, but that Boettcher's (1862a) Cysticercus botryoides, Pagen- 
 stecher's (1877a) coenurus from Myopotamus coypus, and Me"gnin's 
 (1880d) C&nurus polytuberculosus from Dipus sagitta were not. 
 
 Kunsemuller (1903a) has made an excellent comparative study of 
 M. serialis and M. cerebralis. 
 
 Brandegee (1890a) records the parasite from the United States and 
 notes that two species of rabbits were never found infected, though 
 hundreds were examined, only the California hare being infected. 
 She surmises that the wolf is a probable host, and the coyote, lynx, 
 and fox possible hosts of the adult cestode. 
 
 THE HOSTS AND OCCUERENCES OF THE LARVAL MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 
 
 Inasmuch as the list of doubtful and erroneous records is very 
 short, such cases are included here with the certain and probable 
 cases and their standing given in the discussion. No attempt is 
 made to distinguish between hares and rabbits in the following list. 
 They are all listed as rabbits. 
 
 List of occurrences claimed for the larval Multiceps serialis. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 France 
 
 De Blainville 1828a 
 
 One case. 
 
 Rabbit (Lepuscuni- 
 
 England 
 
 Rose 1833a 
 
 A number of cases implied. 
 
 C 11 I II XI. 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 France 
 
 Leblond 1837a 
 
 One case from vertebral canal. 
 
 Do 
 
 England 
 
 Rose 1844a 
 
 One new case. 
 
 Do 
 
 France 
 
 Gervais 1847a 
 
 Leblond 's specimen described as a new 
 
 Do... 
 
 .do.... 
 
 Baillet 1858b . . 
 
 species. 
 Produced adult worm in dogs. 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 Baillct 1863a 
 
 Produced adult and larval worm by 
 
 Squirrel 
 
 England 
 
 Cobbokl 18fi4b 
 
 feeding; failed to infect sheep with 
 eggs of M. serialis or rabbits with 
 eggs of M. multiceps. 
 Host from America. 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 United States (?).. 
 
 Valentin (date?) 
 
 Not seen; cited from Leuckart (1865a. ) 
 
 Rabbit (L. timidus). 
 
 Russia 
 
 Lindemann 1867a ... . 
 
 Descril)ed as ConuTus lowzowi; not 
 
 Rabbit... 
 
 France... 
 
 Troisier 1874a.. 
 
 available; considered by subsequent 
 writers as M. serialis. 
 One case. 
 
 Do 
 
 do ... 
 
 Arloing [18757] 
 
 Per Railliet 1882a; Arloing in Brunei 
 
 Do... 
 Do 
 
 Italy 
 
 England 
 
 Perroncito 1875a. . . . 
 Cobbold 1876b 
 
 1875a does not claim to have found it. 
 One case. 
 Rose's specimens in Guv's Museum and 
 
 Do... 
 
 Scotland 
 
 ... do 
 
 some m Oxford collection. 
 One specimen in Cobbold 's collection 
 
 Do 
 
 France 
 
 Davaine 1877a. . 
 
 One case recorded and others claimed; 
 
 Coypu ( Mynpota- 
 
 Germany 
 
 Pagenstecher 1877a 
 
 specimen exhibited first shown !>v 
 Bailly in 1861; claims that Prince has 
 found this form in France. 
 From Berlin Zoological Gardens. 
 
 mus coy/rtw). 
 Rabbit 
 
 Italy 
 
 Perroncito 1878h..., 
 
 Listed from title; article not available. 
 
 Squirrel (Sciurus 
 
 England. . .. 
 
 Cobbold 1879b 
 
 Same case as Cobbold (18<>41>). 
 
 vulpinust). 
 Rabbit 
 
 England (?) 
 
 do 
 
 Note that Alston has found cccnurus In 
 
 Klippdas ( Ilyrax ca- 
 
 Not given 
 
 ....do 
 
 rabbit. 
 Error, due to confusing records of Ger- 
 
 imi.ii.it. 
 Gray squirrel 
 
 United States 
 
 Stewart 1880a. 
 
 vais (1847a) and Pagenstecher (1877a). 
 Probably a reference to Cobbold "s 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 (IHMb)case. 
 Claimed to occur; no cases or authorities 
 
 
 
 
 cited.
 
 OCCURRENCES OF MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 59 
 
 List of occurrences claimed for the larval Multiceps serial-is Continued. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 Squirrel (Sciurus 
 
 France 
 
 Cagny 1882a. 
 
 One case. 
 
 vulyaris). 
 Rabbit 
 
 do . 
 
 do 
 
 One specimen exhibited by Railliet in 
 
 Do 
 
 Italy 
 
 Perroncito 1882a. . . 
 
 discussion. 
 Number of cases not given. 
 
 Do 
 
 Germany (?).. . . 
 
 Braun 1885c 
 
 One specimen. 
 
 Do 
 
 Russia (?) 
 
 Reinitz 1885a 
 
 Three specimens studied. 
 
 Do 
 
 France 
 
 Railliet 1889n 
 
 One case. 
 
 Do ... 
 
 .do 
 
 Railliet 1889o 
 
 Second spinal case; simultaneous con- 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 New Zealand 
 
 Thomas 1889a 
 
 nective tissue infection with 9 other 
 coenuri. 
 Not available; cited from Braun (1894a). 
 
 Rabbit (Lepus cali- 
 
 United States 
 
 Brandegee 1890a . 
 
 Manv cases in California; paper read in 
 
 farnicus). 
 Rabbit 
 
 France 
 
 Villain and Bascou 
 
 1882. 
 Not available; cited from Morot (1900c); 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 1890a. 
 
 Leclerc 1890a 
 
 one case. 
 Not available; cited from Morot (1900c); 
 
 Do 
 
 .do 
 
 Railliet 18911 
 
 several cases. 
 One case; parasite lived over 2 years. 
 
 Rabbit (L. varia- 
 
 Russia 
 
 Voigt 1891a . . 
 
 One case. 
 
 bilis). 
 Rabbit (L. califor- 
 
 United States. 
 
 Curtice 1892g 
 
 Number of cases not given; in Texas 
 
 nicns and L. tcii- 
 anus). 
 Rabbit 
 
 England 
 
 Robinson 1892a 
 
 and California. 
 One case' scolices with 6 suckers. 
 
 Do 
 Do 
 
 Italy 
 Japan 
 
 Condorelli-M a u g e r i 
 1893a. 
 Janson 1893c 
 
 One case; under pericardium. 
 One case; listed as Ccenurus ccrebralis. 
 
 Do 
 
 France 
 
 Megnin 1896. 
 
 Not available; cited from Morot (1900c); 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 Lucet 1897b 
 
 several cases. 
 One case; 28 coBnuri. 
 
 Do 
 
 .do. 
 
 Vignon 1897a . . . 
 
 Not available; cited from Morot (1900c), 
 
 Do 
 
 United States. 
 
 Ward 1897 b... 
 
 who considers Vignon's Echinococciis 
 a coenurus. 
 Common in Nebraska. 
 
 Horse 
 
 .. .do 
 
 Stiles 1898a 
 
 Doubtful case, already noted under M. 
 
 Rabbit... 
 
 Italy 
 
 Bosso 1898a . . . 
 
 multiceps. 
 One case. 
 
 Rabbit (L. callotis). 
 
 United States. 
 
 Hassall 1898a. . . 
 
 Specimens seen by Stiles or Hassall. 
 
 Rabbit (L. cuni- 
 
 Not North Amer- 
 
 .do 
 
 Do. 
 
 culus). 
 Rabbit . 
 
 lea. 
 France 
 
 Railliet 1899b 
 
 Specimen with many abnormal sco- 
 
 Do 
 
 .. .do 
 
 Morot 1900c... 
 
 lices. 
 Four cases with 4, 11, 20, and 70 coenuri, 
 
 Do.. 
 
 .do.... 
 
 Gallier 1900a. . 
 
 in each host; 1 in eye orbit. 
 One case. 
 
 Do 
 
 Siberia . 
 
 Von Linstow 1901e.. 
 
 Four specimens in St. Petersburg 
 
 Do... 
 
 Italy . 
 
 Parona 1902f . . 
 
 museum. 
 Two cases. 
 
 Do . 
 
 France 
 
 Buysson 1903a 
 
 
 Rabbit (L. cuni- 
 
 Germany (?) 
 
 Kunsemiiller 1903a 
 
 One case* specimen collected in 1874. 
 
 c a lux domcsticus). 
 Rabbit... 
 
 England. ... 
 
 Byerly 1905a . . 
 
 One case. 
 
 Do 
 
 .. .do 
 
 Jowett 19050. . . 
 
 Has found it. 
 
 Do. .. 
 
 United States 
 
 Ransom 1905d 
 
 Specimen No. 1823 figured. 
 
 Do. . . 
 
 Scotland 
 
 Taylor 1905a. 
 
 
 Goat... 
 
 India ... 
 
 Gaiger 1907a. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do... 
 
 do 
 
 Holterbach 1907a. 
 
 Note of Gaiger's (1907a) case. 
 
 Rabbit... 
 
 Not given 
 
 .do 
 
 Sic. 
 
 Cat 
 
 .do 
 
 .do . . 
 
 Sic; error. 
 
 Squirrel 
 
 .do.... 
 
 .do.... 
 
 Sic. 
 
 Sheep 
 
 ...do.... 
 
 ...do.... 
 
 Sic; error. 
 
 Horse 
 
 .do 
 
 .do 
 
 Sic. 
 
 Rabbit (L. califor- 
 nicus). 
 Rabbit 
 
 United States 
 ... .do 
 
 S. E. Piper, in litt. 
 Apr. 14. 1908. 
 Curtice, in litt. July 
 
 In Nevada; several coenuri fed to dog. 
 In Colorado and California in 1887 and 
 
 Goat 
 
 India. .. 
 
 26, 1909. 
 Dey 1909a 
 
 1888. 
 One case: cysts In brain and connective 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 Galli-Valerio 1909a 
 
 tissue. 
 
 Do 
 
 England 
 
 Gray 1909a 
 
 Has seen it in eye orbit. 
 
 Do. .. 
 
 France 
 
 Henry 1909a 
 
 Cosnurus attained volume of 800 c. c. 
 
 Do. 
 
 New South Wales 
 
 Johnston 1909a 
 
 Listed 
 
 Rabbit (Oryctolagus 
 
 Victoria(?) 
 
 Sweet 1909a. .. 
 
 One case. 
 
 cuniculus). 
 Rabbit 
 
 United States 
 
 Dr. Young in litt. 
 
 In North Dakota. 
 
 "Sage rabbit".. 
 
 . .do. 
 
 Oct. 9, 1909. 
 Thos. Large in litt 
 
 In Idaho. 
 
 Rabbit 
 
 United States 
 
 Jan. 6, 1910. 
 Hall 1910/7 
 
 This article. 
 
 
 

 
 60 
 
 THE GID PARASITE AND, ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 The following specimens of M. serialis from the United States are 
 available to the writer. 
 
 Host. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Collector and date. 
 
 Collection. 
 
 I.fpux californicus 
 
 California 
 
 Curtice 1890. 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 1823. 
 
 l.i pl ix sp. 
 
 (?) 
 
 (?) 1894 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 1826 
 
 Lepus callotis 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 Townsend 1896 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 2798. 
 
 Lepus sp . . 
 
 (?) 
 
 (?) 
 
 H A. I coll. No. 2G08 
 
 Do. . 
 
 Michigan . 
 
 Hayward 1904 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 3948 
 
 Lepus cali/ornicus 
 
 California 
 
 Adams 1905... 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 3889. 
 
 Lepus c. walla-walla 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Piper 1907 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 14728. 
 
 Do. . 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 14729. 
 
 Do 
 
 .do 
 
 do 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 14730. 
 
 Lepus sp 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Hall 1910 
 
 B. A. I. coll. No. 15599. 
 
 Do 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Young 1905 
 
 Coll. Hall. 
 
 
 
 
 
 The first of the above lists shows that Multiceps serialis has been 
 claimed to occur in the hare, rabbit, squirrel, coypu, goat, horse, 
 klippdachs, sheep, and cat. Records of its occurrence in the hare 
 and rabbit are undoubtedly correct, the records from the squirrel 
 are probably correct, those from the coypu and goat may be correct, 
 the record from the horse is doubtful, as heretofore indicated, and 
 those from the hyrax, sheep, and cat are errors. 
 
 Cobbold (1864b) found a ccenurus in an American squirrel, Stiurus 
 vulpinusl, which he thought might be the same species that Rose 
 (1833a) found in "bladdery rabbits." This conclusion appears to 
 be substantiated by the subsequent finding by Cagny (1882a) of a 
 ccenurus in a squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris, which had been caught young 
 and kept three years. Cagny's specimen was examined by Me'gnm 
 ancl Railliet who pronounced it Coenurus serialis. Kunsemuller 
 (1903a) thinks Cobbold's ccenurus may be C. serialis. If these 
 authorities are right in their identification of this parasite, its rarity 
 in this host is to be expected, as the squirrel's food is of such a nature, 
 consisting as it does largely of nuts, that fecal contamination by 
 carnivorous hosts of the adult worm would only occur very rarely. 
 
 Stewart (1880a) writing from the United States, says: "The 
 presence of this parasite [Ccenurus cerebralis} has been discovered in 
 the liver of our gray squirrel and in rabbits, as well as in numerous 
 sheep in this country." It is probable that the allusion to the para- 
 site from the squirrel is a reference to Cobbold's (1864b) case of a 
 ccenurus in an American squirrel. The reference to ccenurus forms 
 having been found in American rabbits seems likely enough from 
 our knowledge of the common occurrence of M. serialis in this 
 country, but Stewart's record is uncertain, as he does not claim to 
 have seen such a parasite, nor does he cite anyone who has. 
 
 Lindemann (1867 a), according to a review by Rudnew (Linde- 
 mann 1868b), described a Ccenurus lowzowi from the rabbit in Russia, 
 in an article not available to the writer. This has since been very 
 generally regarded as C. serialis. by helminthological writers, among
 
 DISCUSSION OF OCCURRENCES OF MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 61 
 
 whom are Pagenstecher (1877a), Moniez (1880a), Braun (1897a), 
 and Kunsemiiller (1903a). The review of 1868 says there were no 
 hooks in this form but other writers say the hooks were all the same 
 size. Pagenstecher (187 7 a) says they were all the same size and 
 finds the same thing in one scolex of his coenurus from Myopotamus 
 coypus. Moniez (1880a) says the same and considers it either an 
 error in observation or a teratological fact. Railliet (1899b) has 
 found a great number of abnormalities in Multiceps serialis. In 
 view of this fact and the unanimity of opinion concerning this form 
 it has been accepted here as M. serialis. 
 
 Pagenstecher (1877 a) describes a cosnurus which he identifies as 
 Coznurus serialis from the neck of Myopotamus coypus. Reinitz 
 (1885a) and Braun (1897a) think this form from the coypu is not M. 
 serialis. Moniez (1880a) and Railliet (1882a) accept it as M. seri- 
 alis, and Kunsemtiller (1903a) states that he agrees with Moniez 
 and Railliet and disagrees with Reinitz and Braun. In view of 
 this disagreement, the form is provisionally accepted as M. serialis, 
 as originally described. 
 
 Cobbold (1879b) has the following: 
 
 The klipdas or dasse (Hyrax capensis) is infested by a tapeworm. * * * Under 
 the name of Coenurus serialis a larval cestode has been described by Gervais, the 
 same parasite being called Arhynchotxnia critica by Pagenstecher ("Zur Natur- 
 geschichte der Cestoden." * * *). 
 
 In the index this appears as " Coenurus serialis of the hyrax." 
 
 Cobbold is in error in stating that Gervais described Coenurus 
 serialis from the hyrax. As has been pointed out, his specimen was 
 from the rabbit. Moniez (1880a) notes that Cobbold has confused 
 Pagenstecher' s (1877a) statements, and Railliet (1882a) has stated 
 that Cobbold has listed C. serialis from Ilyrax capensis as a result of 
 some confusion. 
 
 Gaiger's (1907^) and Dey's (1909oO records of M. serialis from the 
 goat in India are provisionally accepted; a more extended discus- 
 sion of these and other forms will be given in a subsequent paper 
 dealing in part with the morphology of Multiceps spp. Holterbach's 
 review of Gaiger's (1907/?) paper contains a number of errors in the 
 list of hosts of M. serialis. 
 
 The list of occurrences shows that the parasite has been reported 
 from France, England, Scotland, Italy, Russia, Siberia, Switzerland, 
 Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, and the United States. 
 Whether the parasite occurs in Germany is doubtful. Pagenstecher's 
 (1877a) co3nurus was collected from a coypu in the Berlin Zoological 
 Garden, and hence the origin of the parasite is in doubt. Reinitz 
 (1885a) does not state where his three specimens were collected, 
 but says that one was the specimen discussed by Braun (1883c) 
 before the Dorpat Naturforscher Gesellschaft and the other two
 
 62 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 were from Prof. Semmer. Braun (1883c) says of the specimen men- 
 tioned that he owes it to "dem Herrn. stud. med. Hasenjager," 
 from which it would appear that it was collected in Germany. Later, 
 however, Braun (1897 a) lists the parasite from Russia on the authority 
 of Reinitz (1885a) and Voigt (189 la), but in giving the distribution 
 of this form he does not mention Germany. Still later, Braun (Braun 
 u. Liihe, 1909a-), writing of the tapeworms of the domestic animals, 
 refers to "Die in Deutschland noch nicht wohl aber in Frankreich 
 beobachtete und sicher auch in Russland bei Hunden workom- 
 menden T. serialis Baill." On the face of it, this statement can 
 hardly be taken to mean more than that the adult T. serialis has not 
 yet been observed in dogs in Germany, and Braun's English translator 
 (Braun u. Liihe, 1910oO does not seem to have sufficient reason, 
 especially as regards Germany for the statement that " T. serialis 
 Baill. * * * occurs in dogs in France, and probably also in 
 Russia, though not in Germany." Kunsemuller (1903a) does not 
 give any locality for his specimens. 
 
 The common occurrence of M. serialis in rabbits in the western 
 part of the United States makes it unlikely that this parasite was 
 imported into this country from the Old World, while its wide dis- 
 tribution abroad and its apparent absence from the eastern part of 
 this country makes it equally unlikely that it was carried abroad 
 from this country. Its presence in Oregon and in Siberia points to 
 the strong possibility of its having spread by way of far northern 
 routes over its present wide range of distribution. 
 
 M. serialis has been recorded from the vertebral canal by Leblond 
 (1837a) and Railliet (1889o), in the latter case with an accompanying 
 infection of the more usual connective-tissue locations. It has been 
 recorded from the pericardium once by Condorelli-Maugeri (1893a), 
 from the eyelid by Byerly (1905^), and from the orbit of the eye by 
 Gray (1909^), and by Mr. S. E. Piper of the Bureau of Biological 
 Survey of the Department of Agriculture in data furnished the writer. 
 
 The number of parasites varies from one, a very common record, 
 to 70 in one case of Morot (1900c), and in size the cyst may attain 
 a volume of 800 c. c., as in the case of Henry (1909 A-). The parasite 
 may live over two years according to Railliet (1891i). Abnormal 
 specimens have been noted by Pagenstecher (1877a) from the coypu, 
 by Robinson (1892a), Railliet (1899b), and Galli-Valerio (1909ar), 
 from the rabbit, and Lindemann's (1867a) specimen was probably 
 such. 
 
 Successful operations for the parasite have been noted by Railliet 
 (1889n) and Byerly (1905^). 
 
 Mr. Piper, who has furnished the Bureau collection with speci- 
 mens as noted above, has also furnished us data stating that the
 
 OCCURRENCES OF ADULT MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 63 
 
 parasite was found in 7 out of 12 rabbits examined in Oregon, a pint 
 of cysts being taken from the peritoneal cavity of one. Mr. Piper 
 also collected M. serialis in Nevada in 1908, as noted in the table, 
 and fed a number to a dog. The dog was shipped to this laboratory, 
 but did not develop the adult parasite, probably owing to diarrhea 
 resulting from intestinal irritation by too many scolices. The writer 
 has since collected M. serialis in Nevada, and developed the adult 
 worm by feeding scolices to a dog. Mr. Graybill, of this laboratory, 
 has also collected M. serialis in Texas and fed it to a dog. Doctor 
 Young, of the University of North Dakota, writes under date of Octo- 
 ber 9, 1909, that there is a specimen in the university collection, 
 unlabeled, and that rabbits which appear to be infected are seen in 
 North Dakota; he himself has seen such a rabbit. Doctor Shantz, 
 of the Bureau of Plant Industry, has seen such rabbits in Kansas and 
 Colorado, and Mr. E. F. Chilcott of the same Bureau says they are 
 common in South Dakota. 
 
 Kaupp's (19Wa) statement that M. serialis is not common in the 
 United States is hardly accurate. In certain Western States it is 
 very common. 
 
 The occurrence of the larval parasite in the muscles of its host, 
 especially in the leg muscles, a common site, and its occurrence in 
 such relatively enormous sizes, numbers, or quantities as are given 
 hi the more extreme cases of Henry (1909^), Morot (1900c), and Mr. 
 Piper, may be looked upon as an adaptation favorable to the parasite, 
 serving to impede the locomotion of the secondary host and so 
 increase the likelihood of its being captured by some carnivore which 
 may serve as the primary host of the parasite. Brandegee (1900a) 
 has also pointed out the presence of an adaptation here. 
 
 THE OCCURRENCES OF THE ADULT MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 
 
 The dog is the only host in which the adult Multiceps serialis has 
 been found or produced. Thomas's (1889a) attempts to infect cats 
 and ferrets by feeding them the larval cestodes failed, according to 
 Braun (1894a), and a surmise such as that of Brandegee (1890a) that 
 the wolf, coyote, lynx, and fox may act as hosts, has, of course, only 
 the value of a surmise. At the same time, Baillet (1866b) early 
 called attention to the fact that the larval parasite was found in the 
 wild rabbit more commonly than in the domestic rabbit, and sur- 
 mised that the usual host was some wild carnivore. 
 
 Galli-Valerio (1909aO failed to develop the adult worm on ingesting 
 two living heads from the larval parasite. The writer also has 
 similarly failed to develop the adult worm on ingesting three living 
 heads from the larval parasite.
 
 64 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 List of occurrences of the adult Multiceps serialis in the dog. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Notes and comments. 
 
 France 
 
 Baillet 1858b... 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 Do... 
 
 Baillet 1863a 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 
 Baillet 1866b.. 
 
 Found several times. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bertolus and Chauveau 
 
 One case in a cosmopolitan "dog of the regiment." 
 
 Italy 
 
 1879a. 
 Perroncito 1878a 
 
 Not available; based on Railliet 's (1882a) state- 
 
 Do 
 
 Perroncito 1882a 
 
 ment that Perroncito failed to infect sheep from 
 Canwus serialis. 
 By experiment. 
 
 New Zealand 
 
 Thomas 1889a. 
 
 Not available* cited from Braun (1894a) - by ex- 
 
 France 
 
 Neumann 1892a .. 
 
 periment. 
 Several times. 
 
 Japan . 
 
 Janson 1893c 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 France 
 
 Railliet 1893a 
 
 By experiment; claimed that Neumann has also 
 
 North America 
 
 Ward 1895b 
 
 produced it; I can not verify claim. 
 Listed. 
 
 Do 
 
 Sommer 1896c 
 
 Stated on the authority of Stiles. 
 
 United States. 
 
 Ward 1897b 
 
 One case out of 20 dogs in Nebraska* others im- 
 
 Do 
 
 Stiles 1898a 
 
 plied. 
 Parasite seen by Stiles. 
 
 Do 
 
 Stevenson 1904b 
 
 Two cases out of 35 dogs in Nebraska; 20 speci- 
 
 Australia 
 
 Cobb 1905a 
 
 mens. 
 One specimen; identification not positive. 
 
 United States. 
 
 Ransom 1905d 
 
 Specimen No. 2839 figured. 
 
 India 
 
 Gaiger 1907a 
 
 By experiment. 
 
 New South Wales. 
 
 Johnston 1909a . . 
 
 Rare. 
 
 United States 
 
 Hall 1910/J 
 
 This article. 
 
 
 
 
 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE. 
 
 As has been stated, Multiceps serialis is of comparatively little 
 economic importance. It deserves attention from an economic stand- 
 point largely because some scientists, especially the Italian, insist on 
 identifying it with the highly important M. multiceps. 
 
 Rose (1833a) states, as before mentioned, that when warreners 
 meet with infested rabbits they puncture the bladder, squeeze out 
 the fluid and send the animal to market. According to Martel 
 (1909or), this custom of puncturing through the skin of infected rab- 
 bits is still in vogue in France. While the idea of eating the parasite 
 is not a pleasing one, the danger from doing so is negligible as the 
 parasite is apparently not transmissible to man,, as Galli-Valerio's 
 (1909or) and the writer's experiments along this line indicate. Moreau 
 (1909r) in a note on abattoir inspection in France, lists muscular coe- 
 nurosis of hares and rabbits as sufficient cause for total condemnation of 
 the carcass, but probably this practice would only be followed in such 
 cases as those listed by Morot (1900c), where rabbits were condemned 
 owing to infestation with 11, 20, and 70 cosnuri each. In Morot's 
 cases, a rabbit infested with only 4 ccenuri was returned for food 
 after the removal of the diseased parts. The writer finds that in the 
 western United States the carcasses of rabbits infected with M. serialis 
 are thrown away as unfit for food.
 
 SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS SEEIALIS. 65 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 The generic synonymy has already been given under Multiceps 
 multiceps. 
 
 Species MULTICEPS SERIALIS (Gervais 18473) Stiles and Stevenson 19053. 
 
 1828. E [chinococcus] veterinorum(t) of de Blainville 1828a; misdetermination . 
 1833. Ccenurus cerebralis Lamarck and Rudolph! of Rose 1833a; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to Rudolphi 1808a; error; misdetermination. 
 1837. Csenurus cerebralis of Leblond 1837a; error; misdetermination. 
 1844. Ccenurus cerebralis of Rose 1844a; misdetermination. 
 1847. Ccenurus serialis Gervais 1847a. 
 1855. Ccenurus serdalis Gervais of Goldberg 1855a; in synonomy of Tsenia ccenurus; 
 
 this combination should be attributed to Goldberg 1855a; misprint. 
 1863. Tsenia serialis (Gervais 1847a) Baillet 1863a; first naming of strobila form. 
 1863. Ccenurus cerebralis? leporis cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; in synonomy of 
 
 Tsenia ccenurus; not at present available, cited from Diesing 1864a, identical; 
 
 this combination should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 
 
 1863. Tsenia ccenuri cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; in synonomy of Tsenia ccenurus; 
 
 this combination should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 
 
 1864. Ccenurus cuniculi (Diesing 1863b) Cobbold 1864b; name taken from MSS. of 
 
 Rose. 
 
 1867. Ccenurus lowzowi Lindemann 1867a; not available, cited from Lindemann 
 
 1868b; same form used once by Braun 1894a. 
 
 1868. Tsenia ccenurus of Cobbold 1867a; error. 
 
 1877. Ccenurus loivtzowi Lindemann of Pagenstecher 1877a; this combination should 
 be attributed to Pagenstecher 1877a; misspelling. 
 
 1877. Ccenurus nov. spec, of Pagenstecher 1877a; Pagenstecher refers thus to the form 
 which he identifies as Ccenurus serialis. 
 
 1877. Ccenurus serialis Gervais of Davaine 1877a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Davaine 1877a; misspelling. 
 
 1877. Tseniaserialis Baillet of Davaine 1877a; space omitted. 
 
 1879. Arhynchotsenia critica Pagenstecher of Cobbold 1879b; error. 
 
 1882. Caenurus serialis (Gervais 1847a) Perroncito 1882a. 
 
 1882. Csenurus saerialis Gervais of Perroncito 1882a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Perroncito 1882a; misspelling. 
 
 1882. Ccenurus serialis Baillet of Ziirn 1882<r; this combination should be attributed 
 to Gervais 184 7a. 
 
 1889. "Ccenurus spec.? Pagenstecher . . . nonCoen.sma&sGerv."ofvonLinstowl889a. 
 
 1894. Tsenia echinococcus of Herff 1894b; misdetermination. 
 
 1897. Ccenurus lowzowii Braun 1897a; misspelling. 
 
 1897. Ccenurus lowtzoivii Braun 1897a; misspelling. 
 
 1898. Cenuro serialis (Gervais 1847a) Bosso 1898<r. 
 
 1900. Taenia (Caenurus) socialis (Bloch 1780a) Gallier 1900a; error. 
 
 1901. C[ystotaenia] serialis (Gervais 1847a) Benham 190 la. 
 
 1901. Coenurus serialis Baill. of Gamble 1901<r; this combination should be attributed 
 to Gervais 1847a. 
 
 1901. T[aenia]' serialis Ball, of Gamble 1901<r; misprint for Baill. 
 
 1901. Caenurus saerialis Gervais of Perroncito 1901a; this combination should be at- 
 tributed to Perroncito 1882a. 
 
 1901. Tenia serialis (Gervais 1847a) Perroncito 1901a. 
 
 1901. T[senia] (Coenurus) serialis Gervais of Vaullegeard 1901a; this combination 
 should be attributed to (Gervais 1847a) Vaullegeard 1901a. 
 
 1903. Tcenia serialis (Gervais 1847a) Thierry 1903a.
 
 66 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 ]905. Caenuri cuniculi (Diesing 1863b) Byerly 1905;-; plural. 
 
 1905. Ccenurus serialias Byerly 1905?-; misprint. 
 
 1905. Ccenurus cerialis Byerly 1905;-; misprint . 
 
 1905. Coenurus scrialis (Gervais 1847a) Davaine 1877a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 
 
 Davaine 1877a is responsible for specific name; scrialis is not Gervais 184 7a. 
 
 1909. Cysticcrcus serialis (Gervais 1847a) Gray 1909n-. 
 
 1909. Tsenia serialis Bailet of Sweet 1909r; misprint for Baillet. 
 
 1910. Ccenurus serialis Gervala of Johnston 1910<r; misprint for Gervais. 
 
 Herff's (1894b) statement that Tsenia echinococcus is very common 
 in the muscles of the jack rabbit in Texas may be considered as 
 probably erroneous. Sommer (1895b) says of this: "Herff must, 
 beyond question, refer to Ccenurus serialis." Stiles also, in his 
 review of Herff (1895a), states that this is probably C. serialis. 
 Herff's (1895b) later statement that the parasite was a "Compound 
 cyst with taenia heads attached to the walls, or sometimes only hook- 
 lets floating in the liquid of the cysts," and his statement that the 
 tapeworm, which he calls T. echinococcus, from the dog, was not more 
 than one inch long, are not convincing. So far as available records 
 show, T. echinococcus is very rare in the rabbit, and the fact that 
 Herff finds a parasite very common hi this host is itself evidence 
 that the parasite was probably not an echinococcus. On the other 
 hand, M. serialis is very common in the muscles of rabbits in the 
 United States, and has been reported from Texas. The weight of 
 evidence favors the idea that Herff's "compound cyst" was M. 
 serialis. For this reason Tsenia echinococcus of Herff (1894b) is in- 
 cluded as a synonym of Multiceps serialis. 
 
 MULTICEPS LEMTJRIS. 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 Cobbold (1859d) described a coenurus from the liver and thorax 
 of Lemur maco. (Von Linstow (1878a) has corrected this host name 
 to read Lemur macaco.) Later Cobbold (1861e) named this parasite 
 Coenurus lemuris. In macroscopic appearance it does not resemble 
 M. multiceps or M. serialis, and from the host and location it is more 
 reasonable to accept it as a new species than to attempt to refer it to 
 either of the two species mentioned. It has been listed as certainly 
 or probably distinct by Diesing (1864a), von Linstow (1878a), 
 Railliet (1882a), and Kunsemiiller (1903a). On the other hand 
 Moniez (1880a) thinks this form probably belongs with Pagenstecher's 
 (1877a) coenurus from Myopotamus coy pus as a specimen of Multiceps 
 serialis, and Pagenstecher also states this as probable. 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 Species MULTICEPS LEMURIS (Cobbold i86ie) Hall igiotf. 
 
 1861. Ccenurus lemuris Cobbold 1861e. 
 
 1880. Coenurus lemuri Cobbold of M6gnin 1880p; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to M6gnin 1880p; misspelling.
 
 MULTICEPS POLYTUBERCULOSUS MULTICEPS SPALACIS. 67 
 
 1880. Coenurus leinuri Cobbled of Megnin 1880p; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Megnin 1880p; misprint for Oobbold. 
 
 1894. Ccenurus lemoris Cobb. 1861 of Braun 1894a; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Braun 1894a. 
 
 MULTICEPS POLYTUBERCULOSUS. 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 Megnin (1879d) describes a coenurus from the leg of the jerboa 
 (Dipus sagitta) . The following year Megnin (1 880d ) named it Coenurus 
 polytuberculosus and published a more adequate description. From 
 the structure of the opaque, tuberculate external coat and of the 
 hooks it seems reasonably certain that this form must be retained 
 as a distinct species. Reinitz (1885a) and Braun (1897a) agree 
 that this parasite is not M. serialis, and Kunsemiiller (1903a) does 
 not think it likely. 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 Species MULTICEPS POLYTUBERCULOSUS (Megnin i88od) Hall igictf. 
 
 1879. "Coanure polytuberculeux" of Megnin 1879d. 
 1880d. Coenurus polytuberculosus Megnin 1880d. 
 
 1894. Cysticercus polytuberculosus Megnin [1880d] of Braun 1894a; this combination 
 
 should be attributed to (Megnin 1880d) Braun 1894a. 
 1903. Coenurus tuberculosus Megnin of Kunsemuller 1903a; this combination should 
 
 be attributed to Kunsemuller 1903a. 
 
 MULTICEPS SPALACIS. 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 Note has already been made of Diesing's (1850a) coenurus "ex 
 Ipalacis capensis," tentatively considered as Coznurus cerebralis by 
 Diesing. In a later article Diesing (1864a) corrected the host 
 name to Spalax capensis and gave a general description, of which 
 the only fact of interest is the occurrence of a single circlet of hooks. 
 Such a feature was mentioned by Lindemann (1867a) as occurring 
 in his Coenurus lowzowi and was found once by Pagenstecher (1877a) 
 in his M. serialis from Myopotamus coypus. The location of the 
 parasite is not given, nor are there any other data of value in species 
 determination, so in the absence of other similar records from this 
 host the species is retained on Diesing's determination and under 
 the name given by Moniez (18SOa). 
 
 A discussion as to the probable host has already been given on p. 40. 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 Species MULTICEPS SPALACIS (Moniez i88oa) Hall igictf. 
 
 1850. Ccenurus Diesing 1850a. 
 
 1878. Coenurus spec.? of von Linstow 1878a. 
 
 1880. Coenurus spalacis Moniez 1880a. 
 
 1902. Coenurus spalacis Dies, of von Linstow 1902q; this combination should be attrib- 
 uted to Moniez 1880a,
 
 68 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
 
 CYSTICEBCTJS BOTRYOIDES (species inquierenda). 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 Boettcher (1862a), according to Braun (1894a), describes a Oysticer- 
 cus botryoides from the back muscles of a rabbit. The form is suid 
 to apparently arise by budding from a parent vesicle. It has been 
 considered as Canurus serialis by Railliet (1882a). Reinitz (1885a) 
 does not consider it as M. serialis, owing to differences in macro- 
 scopic appearance and hook form. Von Linstow (1878a) lists it as 
 " C&nurus spec.1 (Cwnurus cerebralis Rud. ?)." Leuckart (1865a) 
 says that since the size, form, and number of the hooks agree with 
 those of Oanurus [species not specified] there are no grounds for 
 making a new species. Braun (1897a) doubts whether this was a 
 coenurus at all, and considers it a budding cysticercus, and Kunse- 
 muller (1903a) agrees with Braun. Inasmuch as the original de- 
 scription is not available, and the authorities cited disagree as to the 
 identity and even as to the generic position of this form, it has been 
 retained here under the original name as a species inquierenda. 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 Species CYSTICERCUS BOTRYOIDES Boettcher i86aa. 
 
 1862. Cysticercus botryoides Boettcher 1862a; not available; cited from Braun 1894a. 
 1889. Cysticercus botryoides Reinitz of von Linstow 1889a; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to Boettcher 1862a. 
 
 1889. Ccenurus spec. Boettcher of von Linstow 1889a. 
 1896. C[cenurus] botryoides Bottcher of Braun 1896d; this combination should be 
 
 attributed to (Boettcher 1862a) Braun 1896d. 
 
 ACEPHALOCYSTIS OVIS TRAGELAPHI (species inquierenda). 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 Cobbold (1861e), in a list of entozoa, \istsAcephalocystisovistrage- 
 laphiirom Ovis tragelaphus, with the following note: "A solitary 
 specimen filled with clear serous fluid. Probably an aborted Crenurus. 
 Spherical; 1 inch in diameter." 
 
 In the absence of any morphological characteristics which could 
 possibly relate this specimen to the genus Multiceps, and with no 
 statement as to the location on which to base even a surmise as to 
 the likelihood of its being a coenurus, it would be useless to pass judg- 
 ment on this specimen. 
 
 SYNONYMY. 
 
 ACEPHALOCYSTIS OVIS TRAGELAPHI Cobbold i86ie. 
 
 1861. Acephalocystis tragelaphi Cobbold 1861e. 
 
 o