It is safe to say that the taxonomy of Digenea from fishes and invertebrates from Chesapeake Bay is in need of considerable attention. First, the knowledge of what flukes are present is lacking, with the exception of a few scattered papers dealing with a limited number of species. A few such papers about adult Digenea from fishes are by Hopkins (1) and Anderson (2) and about larval forms from second intermediate hosts are by Stunkard and Uzmann (3), Dillon (4), and Perkins (5). A list of the Digenea from Chesapeake Bay compiled by D. E. Zwerner and A. R. Lawler is most likely incomplete from the standpoint of actual species present. Second, there are probably many Digenea present that are identical to those found in fishes from North Carolina and Massachusetts. Much of the knowledge about Digenea from those areas is based on numerous reports by Edwin Linton dating from the late 1800s to 1940 (see Linton, (6), and (7) in particular). Many of the descriptions of the species are insufficient by modern standards. Some of the species are not valid, whereas others should be split into several species. Many of the problems created in the early literature by several authors have yet to be solved
