CHIGGERS — FARRELL 201 



Seasonal distribution: Kno\^'n collections of E. ohioeyisis 

 have been made in fall, winter, and spring. Information is not 

 adequate to determine variations, if any, in seasonal occurrence. 



Geographic distribution : E. ohioensis has a northern distri- 

 bution. Collections have been made from southwestern Ohio, 

 through north-central Pennsylvania, to south-central New Jersey 

 (fig. 7,c). 



Diagnosis : E. ohioensis is most similar to E. carolinensis. It 

 can be distinguished from that species by the fev\'er leaf like setae 

 confined mostly to the last posterior row, by the difference in the 

 anterior dorsal setae, and by the greater number of dorsal setae. 



Ecology: The Warren County, Pa., collections were reported 

 to have been made near a poorly drained ridge top among red 

 maple, black oak, and cucumber tree. The Hamilton County, Ohio, 

 locality vras reported to be a hilltop gi'own up in black locust 

 (6 to 30 feet), elm, and ailanthus; timothy and bluegrass, black- 

 berry and devrberry covered the gi'ound. Tvro localities were 

 reported from Clerm.ont County, Ohio. One was a steep slope 

 with southern exposure, covered vdth timothy, bluegi'ass, black- 

 beriy, goldenrod, and sweet clover, and small ehns and locust. 

 The second locality was rolling farm land, idle for a couple of 

 years, vdth locust seedlings or shrubs in bluegi'ass and blackberry. 



Collectors generally reported E. ohioensis chiggers to be located 

 around the anal opening of the hosts. Tliey were also reported 

 partially imbedded in the skin over most of the abdomen, the back, 

 and the front legs. 



Remarks: No drawings were made for E. ohioensis. In gen- 

 eral, the set of drawings for E. carolinensis will serve for E. 

 ohioensis. However, the palpal clavr more closely resembles that 

 of E. setosa. The scutum is larger and punctate. It is possible the 

 generally larger size of the scutum is more apparent than real. 

 The larger scutal measurements came from well engorged speci- 

 mens. The specimen from Ljxoming County-, Pa., was unengorged, 

 and its measurements are close to those of E. caroliiiensis, only 

 one of which was at all engorged. 



Euschongastia carolinensis and Euschongastia- ohioensis are 

 morphologically and geographically distinct; but they share 

 obvious morphological similarities. There is some evidence that 

 they have smiilar host preferences. One of bvo collections from 

 hosts for E. carolinensis was from Pitymys. Four of ten collec- 

 tions from hosts for E. ohioensis were from Pitymys. Possibly 

 they attach to similar areas on hosts. From this e^idence there 

 is a possibility the two are subspecies. Further collections are 



