340 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM 



Body length 2.54 against 2.57; head (temples) 0.62X0.58 against 

 0.63X0.64; frons 0.29 against 0.29; prothorax 0.40X0.58 against 

 0.36X0.62; pterothorax 0.43X0.78 against 0.43X0.80; abdomen 

 1.32X0.91 against 1.39X0.95. There are but two differences of 

 any importance — viz, width of head at temples (0.58 against 0.64) 

 and the prothorax, which is longer and narrower. The details of the 

 sucking apparatus are not clearly defined either in the type of 

 irazuensis or in the specimens from S. rufus, but those visible seem 

 to be identical, as well as the transverse, frontal carina, the pleurites, 

 and the submarginal abdominal carinae. The two hosts are closely 

 related, and it would serve no useful purpose to attempt their 

 separation. 



The uncertainty surrounding the generic position of T. ochoterenai 

 makes it impossible for me to allocate that species genericalty. I 

 have not been able to see a copy of the description, and while the 

 species was placed under Trochiloecetes in the 1952 "Checklist of 

 Genera and Species of Mallophaga" (Hopkins and Clay) ; there is some 

 doubt of its correctness. If it is actually a Trochiloecetes, it may 

 well be a synonym of T. doratophorum (Carriker), from Selasphorus 

 flammula, since the species of Trochiliphagus from these two hosts 

 are practically the same. If it is a Trochiliphagus, it would then 

 probably be a synonym of T. irazuensis (Carriker) 



Physostomum lineatum Osborn, 1896 



Physostomum lineatum. Osborn, Bull. U.S. Bur. Ent., n.s., p. 248, 1896. Host: 

 Trochilvs colubris Linne. 



This species was placed under the genus Ricinus in Hopkins' and 

 Clay's 1952 checklist. Dr. Osborn says that three specimens were 

 sent to him for identification from Cornell University. I communi- 

 cated with Dr. Dietrich, Curator of Entomology of the Museum of 

 Zoology at Cornell, and he informed me that he has not been able 

 to find any of Osborn's types described in the 1896 paper, and has 

 no idea where they may be located. Osborn stated that the specimens 

 had been returned to Cornell. 



A careful scrutiny of Osborn's description of this species shows 

 that it could not have been a Trochiloecetes and that it was either a Tro- 

 chiliphagus or else a true Ricinus, with a wrongly labelled host. He 

 says: "Front rounded, with a few short hairs; palettes small; lateral 

 angles of temples produced; prothorax widening a little behind and 

 posterior margin concave." None of these characters would apply 

 to Trochiloecetes. 1 suggest that it was a Trochiliphagus, since no 

 mention was made of any darker markings on the sides of the head, 

 a common character in many species of Ricinus. 



