( ns ) 



Enderlein for a species supposed to be diiFerent from ffrossifentris (and anJrocU). 

 The figures accompanyiug the description of tliis M. (ohjpeutii are very good, 

 although there are some errors in the details — as, for instance, the wrong jrosition 

 of the dorsal bristles of the hindtibia in the c?, the cylindrical shape of the second 

 and third foretarsal segments, the absence in the J of a line of separation between 

 the eighth abdominal tergite and sternite, the number of bristles in the i)ronotum, 

 etc. The finger is drawn essentially as in our figure (of 1904), but the ventral line 

 is a little too straight, and hence the ventral distal angle rather too pronounced. 

 This tolypeutis is again the same as grosskentris. By the description of tolypeutis 

 our attention has been drawn to an inaccuracy in our figure of the fifth tarsal 

 segment of grossirentris (= androcli). We described the segment as bearing on 

 the dilated apical portion a bristle, a spine, and a subajiical bristle ; instead of this 

 spine there is in the figure a slender bristle. We regret not having noticed the 

 mistake when correcting the plate. 



The result of our comparison of types and cotypes of all the Malacopxi/lla 

 described is that so far only two species are known to exist : one with a lu-onotal 

 comb — agcnoris, and one without — grossiventn's ; the synonymy of grotisucntris 

 being as follows : — 



2. Malacopsylla grossiventris. 



Pukx grossireiili-h Weyenbergh, Bui. Ac. Nal. Cienc. Avr/ent. iii. p. 188 (1870) ; TascUuub., Die 



FlOhe p. 101 (1880). 

 Mulacopni/lla groxsivenliis Weyenbergh, Periud. Zool. iii. p. 271 (1881) ; Rotbsch., Nov. ZooL xi. 



p. go;! (1904) ; Baker, Prw. U. S. Nat. .Uus. xxix. p. 120 (1905). 

 Sarcoj>s>/lla grossiveiitris, Baker, Can. Eid. xxvii. p. 21 (1895) (partim). 

 MegnpsijUa fjrosahentns, id., Jount. N. York Eiit. Sac. vi. p. 53 (1898) (partim) ; id., Proc. U.S. 



Nat. Mils, xxvii. p. 370 (1904) (partim). 

 .Mcrjapsijlla iiiermis Wahlgren, Arkiv Zool. i. p. 194. t. 9. fig. 11-15 (1903). 

 Mulacojisylla androcli Rothschild, Nov. Zool. xi, p. Ii04. no. 2. t. vii. fig. 10, t. viii. fig. II. 12. 14. 15 



(1904) ; Baker, Proc. U.S. Nal. JIu.s. xxix. p. 125 (1905). 

 Malacopsylla tolypeutis ^niex\e,in, Zool. Am. p. I.'i9. fig. 1-6 (1905). 



The s]K'cies has been found in Argentina and Brazil on Dasgpus sexcinctas, 

 cotiurus, and on Canis griseus. 



Genus RHOPALOPSYLLUS. 



Iihopalop.-<i/Ui,:i Baker, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. .xxix. p. 128 (1905) (type : lulzi). 



The genus is characterised by Baker as follows : — 



" Head without ctenidia, broadly rounded above and in front. Labial palpus 

 four-jointed. Prouotum without ctenidial spines. Legs stout and thick-set ; 

 Lindco.xa on innerside without a comb of minute teeth. Female with one aute- 

 pygidial bristle on either side." 



This definition covers a great many Old and New World Pulicidae which are 

 by no means nearly related to one another. We think a classification of such a 

 difficult group of insects as the Pulicids should be based on the examination of the 

 greater jiroportiou of the species so far known, not on a portion of the American 

 Siphouaptera only, as is practically the case in Dr. Baker's pa])er. However, 

 no harm is done by the creation of a number of generic terms as long as 

 tiicy are accomjianied by some kind of definition and the indication ■ of the typo 



