Dr. Murai Éva szerk.: Parasitologia Hungarica 16. (Budapest, 1983)

The above analysis, in which four species and three subspecies were involved, shows that their validity as well as systematic position are excessively confused and their identification is completely inconstant. Validity of some given species were confirmed by some of the subsequent authors, while others questioned it. The reasons of these are to be found in the fact that there is no standard description of equally level on the species in question. Accordingly, because of the incomplete data available, the authors attributed more importance to the ones which were just at their disposal. The differentiation of species in this paper was mainly based on the specificity of the reproductive system, the alimentary tract and occasionally other features (excretory system, structure of pharynx; see the key characters) and this methodical principle will be followed throughout in this paper. Of the Asian species of Diplodiscus, the following ones are regarded to be valid by the writer: D. amphichrus Tabangui, 1933 D. magnus (Srivastava, 1934) nov. comb. Syns: D. sinicus Li, 1937 D. melanosticti Yamaguti et Mitunaga, 1943 D. mehrai of Pandey et Jain, 1974 D. mehräT

of Pendey, 1973 D. mehrai Pande, 1937 Syns: D. japonicus (Yamaguti,

1936) D. amphichrus of Singh, 1954; of Agrawal, 1966; of Mukherjee, 1966 D. amphichrus brevis Nama et Khichi, 1973 D. amphichrus of Mukherjee and Ghosh, 197 2 D. minutus Li et Gu, 1978 D. chauhani Pandey, 1969 Syns: Diplodiscus sp. Anjaneyulu.l

967 D. anjaneyului Pandey et Jain, 1974 D. lali Pandey et Chakrabarti, 1968 Syn. : Pseudodiplodiscoides pilai Murty, 1970 D. sacculosus Yuen, 1962 The first diplodiscid of African frogs was described by SKRJABIN (1916) from East Africa, which was identified as Diplodiscus subclavatus

. It was later discovered by JOYEUX (1923) in Tunis; JOYEUX and BAER (1928) in Benin; MAEDER et al. (1969) in Gabon; MAEDER (1973) in Ivory Coast; GRASSMANN (197 5) in Gabon; SALAMI-CADOUX and GREGORIO (197 6) and BOURGAT (1979) regarded this species as D. fischthalicus MESKAL, 1970. The next species of the genus was D. doyeri, described by ORTLEPP (1926) from South Africa. It was re-named by VERCAMMEN-GRANDJEAN (1960) as included in the genus Pro gonimodiscus set up by himself (it will be discussed under this genus). In 1964 MANTER and PRITCHARD discovered D. pallascatus from Central Africa; RITCHARD et al. (1968) described D. brevicoeca from Malgasy. FISCHTHAL and THOMAS (1968), on the basis of Ghanian material, revealed the Indian subspecies, D. amphichrus magnus SRIVASTAVA, 1934 and raised it to species rank and in another paper FISCHTHAL (1977), however, regarded it to be a synonym of D. fischthalicus MESKAL, 1970. D. fischthalicus was described by MESKAL (197 0) from Ethiopia which, according to the author, is very similar to D. subclavatus. PIKE (197 9), on the basis of the examinations carried out in the Sudan, came to the conclusion that the information available presently is not sufficient to distinguish D. fischthalicus from D. subclavatus. BAYSSADE-DUFOUR et al. (1978) comparing the excretory system, the argentofile structure of the cercarial tail and body surface of the European and African D. subclavatus, found that there are important differences in number and arrangement of these structures, especially in those situated along the tail. Accordingly, they considered D. fischthalicus as a valid spe-