Shortly afterwards, Adler and Feldman-Muhsam connnsnced rear- 

 ing Palestinian species in the same manner as Delpy. They corro- 

 borated Delpy's species definitions but not his species names. 

 In their 19^8 paper these authors provided a potash clearing 

 method for females by which they established constant species 

 characters for the unmated female genital aperture. Delpy 

 expanded this finding to mated females, thus making it of greater 

 value for identification of field-collected material. Neverthei. 

 less, some questionable specimens inevitably crop up in routine 

 collections. 



Unfortunately, as stated above, Belpy and Adler and Feldman- 

 Muhsam arrived at different conclusions regarding which name from 

 the scores available shotild be applied to individual species, R&- 

 cently Feldman-Muhsam (1954) , after study of Koch's (18A4.) type 

 specimens for several species in the genus, heis corroborated some 

 of Delpy's earlier decisions and proposed a few changes. Although 

 Koch's material is badly damaged and its labels have been inexcus- 

 ably tampered with, these studies probably represent the final 

 word on these species; therefore this terminology is accepted 

 with certain reservations as noted in the appropriate places, 



Delpy's chief morphological and taxonomic contributions to 

 Hyalomma have been his notes on the genus (1936,194.6A), descripu 

 tion of H. schulzei (1937A), description of the immatiare stages 

 of H. dromedarii (1937B), generic revision by experimental methods 

 (19Z7D and 19A-9A, especially the latter ), and a synoptic list and 

 discussion (194-98) , besides studies on bovine theilerosis and 

 tick transmission (193X,1946B,1947A,1949C and 1950). Adler and 

 Feldman-Muhsam presented their chief overall findings in their 

 19^8 paper; subsequent reports by the latter author are 3j.sted 

 in the bibliography. 



Whenever possible, Delpy's (19A-9B) synonymy has been followed 

 in the present work. Some changes have been necessary, however, 

 on the basis of the kind of proof that Delpy himself advocated: 

 rearing of progeny from single, known females. A few other chemges 

 have been necessary due to FeldmajuMuhsam's study of Koch's types. 

 It is impossible to decide whether Delpy or Pomerantzev (1950) 

 should be followed for the synonymy of certain Russian species, 

 Pomerantzev 's ideas, whenever they differ, have been included as 

 notes under the names indicated by Delpy, 



- 390- 



