232 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



In the discussion of this communication Mr. Howard stated 

 that in his opinion Mr. Ashmead was correct in referring 

 Melittobia to the Tetrastichinae, and called attention to the fact 

 that if, as Mr. Ashmead seemed to suppose, this is a primary 

 parasite on Bee larvae, it offers a striking exception to the rule 

 of hyper-parasitism in this sub-family. He further stated that 

 the rearing of this genus from Aculeata which store pollen, in 

 addition to those which store insects, eliminates one element in 

 the determination of host habit which might otherwise be very 

 confusing. 



Dr. Marx presented the following paper : 



NOTE ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE IXODIDAE. 



BY GEORGE MARX. 



While many naturalists, even some of the present day, as 

 Megnin, Blanchard, Raillet and others maintain that the 

 Ixodidae comprise only the one genus Ixodes L/atr. , or in 

 other words that all species of Ticks ought to be brought into 

 this one -solitary genus, C. Koch, on the other hand, recom 

 mended that the Ixodidae should be separated from the order 

 Acari and be elevated to the rank of a new order of Arachnida ; 

 this new order, which he calls Ricini, to be divided into separate 

 families and numerous genera. 



This great dissension of opinion is due, perhaps, to the fact 

 that the former naturalists arrived at their conclusion by 

 treating only the forms of their limited indigenous fauna, 

 which consists principally of the species of the genus Ixodes 

 lyatr. Koch, on the contrary, acquired a broader and more 

 general view of the group by studying material collected over 

 the whole globe, which enabled him to observe forms that 

 could not be placed in the narrow limits of one genus without 

 utter disregard for the laws of classification; but he failed to 

 show valid reasons for the separation of the Ricini from the 

 other Acari, therefore I do not consider myself warranted in 

 following him in this direction. Koch was, however, certainly 

 right in dividing the heterogeneous material of his Ricini into 

 different families and genera, especially as he also separated 

 the Argasidae* from the Gamasidae and brought them into 

 the scope of his new group. 



* Agassiz in his nomenclator substituted Argantidce for Argasida, 

 but claims that Argas is derived from the name of a serpent, the genitive 

 of which is Arg-o the family name accordingly should be Arg-idae. 

 For convenience and suitableness I have adopted 

 for this family. G. M. 



