When discussing the food question in my ‘Manual,’ I freely availed myself of facts privately communicated by Dr. Joseph Fleming, and I especially referred to the published labours of Lewis, Hewlett, Veale, and other observers stationed in India. Beef measles are extremely common in the cattle of the north-west provinces of India, so much so that severe restrictions have been imposed upon the consumption of ration beef. The presence of a few measles in the flesh of cattle has been deemed a sufficient excuse for condemning and burying entire carcases. The measle is easily distinguished from that of mutton and pork by the fact that its head is not furnished with hooks, whilst in the place of a rostellum there is a small, centrally placed, retractile disk, which assumes the appearance of a supplementary sucker as in the adult worm. The four true suckers are also comparatively large. The measle usually varies in size from the fourth to the half of an inch in length, but my cabinet contains a specimen nearly an inch long. This was contributed by Dr J. Fleming, who mentions having seen a measle which, when unrolled, measured nearly an inch and a half in length. Although thousands of these bladder worms must exist in the cattle of England, up to the present time not a single instance has been recorded of the occurrence of these cystic parasites in the United Kingdom, except in our experimental animals. Notwithstanding my inquiries, I have not yet found a butcher, flesher, meat-inspector, or veterinarian, who has encountered this parasite in any animal slaughtered for the market. Several butchers have denied their occurrence in meat sold by themselves. Even so late as June, 1874, the presence of measles in the flesh of cattle was denied before an assembly of French _savans_; yet for many years past I have constantly exhibited measly beef and veal in the lecture room of the Royal Veterinary College. (See the discussion of the Société de Thérapeutique, recorded in the ‘Bullétin Gén. de Thér.’ for June 30th, 1874, and also the ‘Jour. de Thér.,’ No. 14, for July, p. 556, where, however, special remarks on this head have been omitted; see also the ‘Lond. Med. Record’ for July 29th, 1874, p. 472, and the ‘Lancet’ for Dec., 1874, p. 794.) Quite in contrast with the statements referred to are those of recent Italian observers.