( 361 ) 



insects, aad it strikes ns as particularly interesting that the new Ctenophtkalmus 

 and the new LeptoiJ.yjUa, both occurrinj; at Alger auJ Hammam Uirha, are closely 

 allied to species from Tropical Africa. 



1. Xenopsylla cleopatrae Roths. (19i)3). 



Pulex denjtalrae Rothschild, Ent Mo. Maj. (2) xiv. p. 84. no. 3. tib. 1. fi,' 7, 8. tib. 2. &rr. 13, 17 

 (1903) (Shendi, Sudan). 



4 cJc?, 4 ? ? from Gnelt-es-Stel, off Merioiies shawl, April 22 and 23, 1912. 

 1 ? from Gnelt-es-Stel, off Icto>v/x libi/ca, April 24, 1912. 



2. Xenopsylla chersinus Roths. (19u6). 



Pulex clifrsiiius Rothschild, Enlom. xxxix. p. 75. tab. 4. fi^. 13 (1906) (Khartum). 



1 3 from Gaelt-es-Stel, in a nest of Dipus orii'ntalis, April 22, 1912. 



1 cJ, 1 ? from Gaelt-es-Stel, off Miwiones s/ta/ri, April 23 and 24, 1912. 



5 ? ? from Biskra, oW Dipus spec, March 1908, collected by J. Steinbach. 



The species was described from a single 3, and the present two ? ? are 

 the only e.\amj)les which have come to hand since. They are distiiignished from 

 X. nubicus particularly by the bristles of the outer j)rocess of the clasper being all 

 situated at or near the apex. One of the two Algerian 3 S differs from the other 

 as well as from the type-specimen in the smaller number of subapical bristles 

 on this process. 



The ¥ ? are so close to those of A', rmbkiis and X. astia that we cannot at 

 present distinguish them with absolute certainty. The receptaculum has the same 

 shape in the three species. The bristles of the hiad-tarsi are rather longer in 

 chersinus than in the other two species. 



3. Xenopsylla ramesis Roths. (1904). 



Pulex ramesis Rothschild, Eiitoni. xxxvii. p. 2. no. 2. tab. 1. fig. 3 (1904) (Liwer Egypt). 



3 cJcJ, 3 ? ? from Guelt-es-Stel, ofi Meriones shaici, April 21 and 22, 1912. 



4 a, 2 ? ? from Khenchela, oS Meriones shawi, May 7 and 10, 1912. 



4. Ceratophyllus barbarus spec nov. (PI. VI. figs. 1 and 2). 



c? ?. Both se.xes are very close to C.fasciatas Bosc. (1801), differing only in 

 the modified abdominal segments. Although the differences are not very striking, 

 they aj)pear to be constant, inasmuch as they are present in all the specimens 

 of our long series of barbarus. 



The finger of barbarus (PI. VI. fig. 1, F) is one-si.\th shorter than in true 



fasciatus, and the two large bristles placed at its distal margin have a 



distinctly more ventral position in barbarus, the lower one placed exactly in the 



middle of the finger or a trifle below it in barbarux and above the centre in 



fasciatus, the distances being measured in straight lines from the socket of the 



lower long bristle of the clasper to the median bristle, and from there to the 



