32 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



In the Ann. Entom. Soc, France, for 1864, Lucas described, on 

 page 206, a curious mite from Algeria and Tunis. He called it Rhyn- 

 cJiolophus (?) plwnipes. It differed from the ordinary species of this 

 genus in a number of minor characters, but was chiefly remarkable in 

 having on the hind tarsi a dense plume of long hair. Frauenfeld, in the 

 Zool-bot. Ges. Wien., XVIII., p. 892. records having received specimens 

 from Spain and Corfu, which he considers this species. He does not 

 give any description of his forms, so it is not possible to tell whether 

 they were the same species or not. Then, Haller, in his paper — Beit. 

 zur Keuntniss der schweizerischen Milbenfauna — gave a figure and 

 description of a mite, which he considered Lucas's species, from speci- 

 mens collected in Switzerland. There are, however, numerous differ- 

 ences between his form and that described by Lucas, so there is no 

 doubt that the Swiss species is new. In 1893, Birula, in Horos Soc. 

 Entom. Ross, p. 388, under the heading of ^'R/iyncholophus ( Macropus) 

 pliimifer^' describes an allied mite. He gives no reference to Lucas, 

 and probably did not know of R. plumipes. The subgeneric name, 

 Macropus, is not mentioned in the text of the article. His species came 

 from Russian Armenia. C F. George, in Science Gossip, Vol. III., p. 

 T50 (1896), records R. plumipes from the Isle of Jersey ; it is not certain 

 that it is the species of Lucas. Now, in 1897, Cambridge, in the Proc. 

 Zool. Soc, London, p. 939, gives the description and figure of a new 

 genus and species of mite from Algeria — Eatonia scopulifera. He refers 

 to Birula's paper, but not to that of Lucas or Haller. A glance at his 

 figures and description shows that it is the same as Rhynchoiophus plum- 

 ipes, without the shadow of a doubt. 



Now the question arises, "What is the name of this mite?" All 

 of these mites have the same peculiar structure of the hind tarsi, and 

 undoubtedly form a natural group of generic rank. The first name 

 proposed, Macropus, by Birula (which is not mentioned by Cambridge) 

 has been used several times in Zoology, and so is not available. Eatonia 

 has been used at least twice before, and also becomes inapplicable. It 

 is therefore necessary to create a new name for the genus. I propose 

 Lucasiella. 



As to the species, Cambridge's species is the same as that of Lucas. 

 Haller's form is not the same, and may be called L. Haller i. Birula's 

 species is a good one, so that there are at least three species of this 

 genus in the Mediterranean region, which may be tabulated as below : 



