BIBLIOGRAPHY (No. 29).--_Bilharz_, ‘Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool.,’ Bd. iv, s. 55.--_Cobbold_, ‘Entozoa,’ p. 361.--_Idem_ “Remarks on Recent Contributions to our Knowledge of the Parasitic Nematoids, especially in reference to the Wasting Diseases they produce in Man and Animals,” the ‘Veterinarian,’ Jan., 1876, p. 1.--_Davaine_, l. c., pp. 118 and 931.--_Diesing_ “Revis. der Nematoden,” ‘Sitzb. d. m.-naturw. cl. d. k. Akad.,’ 1860, s. 716.--_Dubini_, ‘Entozoografia,’ &c., 1849.--_Griesinger_ (quoted above), see also ‘Arch. f. Phys. Heilk.,’ 1854.--_Küchenmeister_, l. c., Eng. edit., p. 383.--_Leuckart_, l. c., ss. 410-455.--_Molin_, ‘Il sottordine degli Acroffali,’ p. 61 (quoted by Leuckart).--_Siebold_, ‘Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool.,’ 1852, s. 55.--_Sonsino, P._, _L’Anchilostoma duodenale_ in ‘relazione coll’ Anemia progressiva perniciosa,’ Egitto, 1877.--_Idem_, ‘Sull.’ _Anch. duod._, 1878 (see also Bibliog. No. 27, both reprinted from ‘Imparziale.’)--_Weber, H._, l. c., 1867.--_Wucherer_ (quoted above), 1872. _Dracunculus medinensis_, Cobbold.--This parasite is popularly known as the guinea-worm, or Medina-worm. Probably Lister was the first writer who distinctly spoke of it as the Dracunculus, 1690, the same title being applied to it by Kaempfer, 1694. Be that as it may, Gmelin, long afterwards, placed the parasite in the genus _Filaria_, at the same time adopting the specific title _medinensis_. This had been previously employed by Linneus, who, however, regarded the worm as belonging to the genus _Gordius_. It being clear from the distinctive characters of the entozoon that it was desirable to separate it from the Filariæ, and that no better generic name could be devised than _Dracunculus_, I thought it right to combine Lister’s and Gmelin’s nomenclature as above, 1864. Leuckart pursued a similar course, crediting Linneus with the titles.