Dr. Kassai Tibor szerk.: Parasitologia Hungarica 2. (Budapest, 1969)

These features suggest that the parasite may have escaped the attention of investigators, just as Paraergasilus rylovi went undetected in the nasal cavity until JACZÓ'

s observations in 1961. The possibility of introduction ought to be considered because the time of first demonstration of the parasite in Europe coincided with the commercial introduction of fish from Asia to Europe. One might consider, as sources of infection, the Amurian carp introduced to the Carpathian Ukraine, the phytophagous fish species Introduced to Rumania and later also to Hungary, indeed, even the silver carp imported into Hungary in 1954. However, despite the most thorough examinations no parasite was found on phytophagous fish species. Although many arguments can be presented both for and against the autochthonous or introduced nature of the parasite, final ciarification of the problem will be possible only after painstaking investigations conducted in several countries. Summary The authors discuss the occurrence in Hungary of 11 parasitic copepods collected from fish (26 species) taken from various sources (Lakes Balaton and Velence, Rivers Danube and Tisza, several streams and fish ponds). Of the crustaceans, Ergasilus briani Markewitsch, Ergasilus nanus van Beneden, and Neoergasi lus japonicus (Harada) have not previously been found in Hungary. Besides listing the parasitic copepods, the authors also discuss ecological and pathological aspects of the parasites. PÓNYI, J. — MOLNÁR. K.: Adatok Magyarország halai parazitafaunájának vizsgálatához V. Parazita Copepodák A szerzők különböző vizek, a Balaton,, a Duna, a Tisza, a Velencei-tő, kisebb patakok és tógazdaságok halairól (26 faj) gyüj-