duced from elsewhere. Data in the present report are the only- 

 published facts that give any information on the biology or 

 ecology of B. annulatus on this continent. North African and 

 Near Eastern populations usually called B. calcaratus subspp. 

 appear to be identical to B. annulatus . 



The third species, B. microplus (Canestrini, 1888) (= B. 

 fallax Minning, 193^), i" not yet known from the Sudan. ThTs 

 pantropical cattle parasite appears slowly to be extending its 

 present southern and eastern African range northwards after once 

 having been more widely distributed on Africa because of frequent 

 importation of infested cattle from Madagascar. Differential 

 characters for this species are provided in the following key and 

 additional notes concerning it may be found following the discus- 

 sion of the two related species. 



What has been considered the classic taxonomic work on 

 Boophilus is that of Minning (1934,1935,1936). He divided the 

 genus into three subgenera: Boophilus (sensu strictu ), Uro boophi - 

 lus , and Palpoboophilus and described a number of '"new"' species. 

 These subgenera have been given the status of genera in many pub- 

 lished papers, probably because l>&nning himself, curiously enough, 

 failed to place a generic designation before them in his discus- 

 sion of species. Several later workers (Cooley 19A6, Anastos 

 1950, and others) have questioned the worth of these findings, 

 and in the present instance the I'linning reports are of little 

 value. The method appears to have been to hastily examine a few 

 specimens from widely scattered areas, to describe and illustrate 

 them inadequately, and whenever possible to apply names based on 

 assumed, iincritically regarded, slight morphological variations. 

 There is little or no correlation between the present and other 

 extensive collections of boophilids collected from several geo- 

 graphical areas throughout the world, and Minning «s illustrations 

 and remarks about species collected in the sajne localities. Anastoc 

 (1950) has abandoned these three subgenera with the hearty concixr- 

 rence of many serious colleagues. 



Anastos (loc . cit . ) on the other hand, would confine the known 

 Boophilus species of the world to the three discussed herein. Al— 

 though it appears that his view is most likely correct, a pains- 

 taking study of extensive, worldwide series of specimens will be 



- 293 - 



