of Worms found in the Kidneys of Wolves,” ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1729-30, p. 269.--_Küchenmeister_, l. c., Eng. edit., p. 376.--_Leblanc_ (rep. by Rayer and Bouley), in ‘Bull. de l’Acad. de Méd.,’ 1850, p. 640; in ‘Rec. de Méd. Vét.,’ 1862, p. 800; and quoted by Davaine.--_Leuckart_, l. c., Bd. ii, s. 353-401, 1876.--_Moublet_, “Mém. sur les vers sortis des reins et de l’urethre d’un enfant,” ‘Journ. de Méd-Chir. et Pharm.,’ 1758, pp. 244 and 337.--_Otto_ (Anat.), in ‘Mag. d. Gesellsch. naturf.,’ 1814.--_Owen_, art. “Entozoa,” in Todd’s ‘Cyclop.’--_Rayer_, ‘Traité des maladies des reins,’ 1841.--_Rayger_, ‘Sur un serpent qui sortit du corps d’un homme après sa mort’ (quoted by Davaine, l. c., p. 272), 1675.--_Schneider_, ‘Monographie der Nematoden,’ 1866, s. 50.--_Idem_ (mit Peters), quoted by Leuckart, l. c., s. 382.--_Stratton_, in ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ p. 261, 1843. _Dochmius duodenalis_, Leuckart.--Much time might be occupied and wasted over the nomenclature of this parasite. In my previous treatise, and for reasons there stated, I placed it under the genus _Sclerostoma_. On rather slender grounds Dubini formed the genus _Anchylostoma_ for its reception, but Von Siebold thought that, on account of the absence of symmetry in the arrangement of the so-called dental organs, Dubini’s genus might very well be allowed to remain. Bilharz, Diesing, Küchenmeister, Wucherer, and others have retained the genus as either _Anchylostoma_ or _Anchylostomum_. Schneider keeps it amongst the _Strongyli_; but after all that has been said and written there can, I think, be no doubt that if Dujardin’s genus _Dochmius_ is to be retained at all, Dubini’s worm must be placed in it. The comparisons instituted by Leuckart afford sufficient proof of the intimate alliance as between _Anchylostoma_ and _Dochmius_. Professor Molin thought to meet the difficulty by calling the worm _Dochmius anchylostomum_, but the specific term, _duodenale_, should certainly be retained. This worm was discovered by Dubini at Milan, and though at first thought rare, it is now known to be tolerably common throughout Northern Italy. The worm has also been recently found by Dr Kundrata at Vienna, in an Austrian subject. According to Pruner, Bilharz, and Griesinger, it is abundant in Egypt. Griesinger believed that about one fourth of the people of that country suffered from anæmic chlorosis, solely in consequence of the presence of this worm in the small intestines. From Wucherer’s observations especially, we know that Dubini’s worm is not limited to the localities above mentioned, for it occurs in the western tropics, in Brazil, and even in the Comoro Islands.