In the second half of the present work I shall reproduce Blanchard’s admirable figure of the sexually mature worm (Fig. 61), accompanied by a categorical statement respecting the known facts of development. In this place, however, I may observe that the cases recorded by Giesker, Harris, and Fox had clearly pointed to the circumstance that the higher larvæ of this fluke must be armed cercariæ, otherwise they could not have bored their way through the human skin. As we shall see, Dr Willemoes-Suhm’s investigations have furnished evidence as to the truth of this supposition. For anatomical details I refer to my introductory treatise. In the adult state the liver fluke has been known from the earliest times. We have clear evidences that it was described by Gabucinus in the year 1547, and also subsequently by Cornelius Gemma, who, in a work published some thirty years later, refers to an epizootic disease prevalent in Holland during the year 1552, and which was very justly attributed to the parasite in question. After this date many writers described the liver fluke more or less accurately, and entire volumes were devoted to the consideration of the formidable disease which it occasions. The nomenclature of the parasite has been a subject of controversy. Amongst naturalists in general the common liver fluke is often described under the combined generic and specific name of _Distoma hepaticum_; but the title is both incorrect and inappropriate. The proper generic appellation of this parasite is _Fasciola_, as first proposed by the illustrious Linneus (1767) and subsequently adopted by F. Müller (1787), Brera (1811), Ramdohr (1814), and others. Unfortunately Retzius (1786) and Zeder (1800) changed the generic title without good cause, and the majority of writers, following their authority, refused to employ the original name, although a consideration of the distinctive types of structure severally displayed by the genera _Distoma_ and _Fasciola_ fairly demanded the retention of the Linnean title. In later times M. Blanchard (1847) strongly advocated the original nomenclature, and I have myself continually urged its adoption. On somewhat different grounds Professor Moquin-Tandon followed the same course.