308 Annals of the South African Museum. 



pi. xiii. fig. 8, 1842) to the Lipeurus of the shag [^Phalacrocorax 

 graculus (cristatus)] and applied the same designation to specimens 

 of this genus taken " Sur un Carbo sulcirostris de Celebes (Museum 

 de Leide). Sur un C. africanus de Dembea (ibid.) la fernelle n'avait 

 de taches transverses ni sur le dos, ni sur le ventre." The absence 

 of the transverse markings on the tergites indicates immaturity 

 merely, and is of no systematic value. Apart from using a pre- 

 occupied name, we think it almost certain that Piaget had before 

 him two different species when he drew up his account of brevicornis. 

 We know at any rate now that C. africanus has a Lipeurus of its own 

 which is distinct from the species Piaget has described. It is 

 possible that Piaget's $ from C . africanus was a straggler on that 

 host (and this is not improbable, since the example occurred on 

 a Museum skin), but bearing in mind the general resemblance to one 

 another of the 5 $ of this group of Lipeurus it is simpler to suppose 

 that Piaget judged two forms to be one. This would be all the 

 easier since the example in question was immature. In dealing with 

 Lipeurus from Phalacrocorax (Carbo) it is inadvisable, in our opinion, 

 to assimilate forms from separate host species unless one has been 

 able to examine critically the $ in both instances. 



In 1908 Kellogg, quite justifiably, therefore erected the species 

 afer for the Lipeurus of P. africanus, Natron Lakes, Kilimandjaro- 

 meru (Sjostedt leg.). In introducing this new form Kellogg, who 

 assuredly had not overlooked Piaget's brevicornis, remarks: " The new 

 species is quite distinct from any form heretofore recorded, especially 

 in the characters of the male." (The italics are ours.) 



Before becoming convinced of the great diversity of species in the 

 series of Lipeurus found on Phalacrocorax, another possibility had 

 occurred to us, viz., that Piaget might unconsciously have used 

 brevicornis in Denny's sense. Though this is not the case, it is 

 curious that true brevicornis, D., should come so close as it does to 

 afer, Kellogg. The two are, however, abundantly distinct. The 

 genitalia of afer are extremely delicate, indeed without dissection 

 their presence is hard to demonstrate. 



It should be added that Bagnall and Hall (Journ. Econ. Brol. vii, 

 No. 1, p 9, Feb., 1912), on the ground that brevicornis is pre- 

 occupied, propose to substitute confusus for Piaget's name. This 

 name too, we think, should be rejected, as it is still held to apply to 

 a Lipeurus from C. sulcirostris and C. africanus. 



We have then (a) L. brevicornis, D., from P. graculus, (b) L. afer, 

 Kellogg, from P. africanus, and (c) a third species unnamed from 

 P. sulcirostris. It would be easy to propose a new name for the last 



