106 Fleas of Eastern United States 



forked, the upper process more or less in the form of pincers, 

 the lower process dilated apically and roughly in the form of 

 a hook (Plate XXIX, fig. 155) . Penis broad and bladelike, its 

 spring long, completing at least one turn (Plate XXIX, fig. 153) . 

 Sternite IX with a narrow ventral process which bears a stout 

 bristle; apically the sternite bears another much more robust 

 bristle (Plate XXIX, fig. 154) . 



Records. CONNECTICUT— Hamden, September, 1915, on 

 Myotis subulatus subulatus (Say) , two females, male (E. A. 

 Chapin) . DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA— Washington, August, 

 1924, on "bat," female (P. Bartsch) . ILLINOIS— Chicago, 

 July 31, 1936, on "Myotis lucifugus," two females (R. 

 Komarek). IOWA— Dubuque, March 19, 1938, on Myotis 

 lucifugus lucifugus (LeConte) , four females (T. Scott) . KEN- 

 TUCKY— Mammoth Cave, July 30, 1929, on "bat," male; 

 August 6, 1929, on "Neotoma species," three females (L. 

 Giovannoli) ; Colossal Cave, November, 1929, on "Myotis 

 lucifugus." female (V. Bailey). MAINE— Mount Katahdin, 

 September 7, 1928, on Myotis lucifugus lucifugus (LeConte) , 

 female (Harper and Hamilton). MARYLAND — Baltimore, 

 June 20, 1922, on "Myotis lucifugus," male and female (F. M. 

 Root) ; Plummer Island, August 1, 1923, on "bat," three males, 

 two females. OHIO— Put-in-Bay, August 18, 1937, on "Myotis 

 species," male (C. O. Mohr) . 



Eastern hosts. Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus lucifugus 

 (LeConte) and Myotis subulatus subulatus (Say) ) , Wood Rat 

 ("Neotoma species") . 



Eastern localities. Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illi- 

 nois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

 York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, (Canada) . 



Type material. Three males and nine females from Waterloo, 

 Ontario, Canada, on Myotis lucifugus (LeConte) in the N. C. 

 Rothschild Collection (British Museum) . 



A species of bat flea from Missouri was described by Baker 

 (1905, p. 137) under the name of Ceratopsylla crosbyi which 

 apparently belongs in this genus. The description of this 

 species is very inadequate and applies just as well to M. insignis 

 (Rothschild) . Its status has already been questioned by Roths- 

 child (1906, p. 187) who doubts that it is distinct. At the 

 present state of our knowledge, it is not possible to determine 

 the status of this name either as representing a good species or 

 as a synonym of M. insignis. 



