8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. JT^ 



22. The status of D. venustus n. sp. 1908 and its type specimen must be 

 determined. Theoretically, three possibilities are present, namely : 



a. D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, might be identical with D. venustus 

 Marx in Neumann, 1897; or 



b. D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, might represent a new species; or 



c. D. venusttis n. sp. Banks, 1908, might be D. venustus 1897 plus another 

 species. 



23. Is D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, identical with D. venustus Marx in 

 Neumann, 1897? Banks distinctly states that he adopts the name from Marx's 

 manuscript. Neither Bishopp nor I have been able to find this manuscript, 

 so possibly reference is made to the labels in the bottles. Banks quotes among 

 the localities, " Las Cruces, New Mexico," " Soldier, Idaho," and " Texas 

 (on sheep)." These three localities are in harmony with the Marx specimens 

 Nos. 120, 121, 122. The presumption therefore would seem to be that Banks 

 examined these three specimens. I am in a position to state that these three 

 specimens, with drawings of No. 122, and with my manuscript giving No. 122 

 as type of D. venustus were placed on a table in my laboratory in front of 

 Mr. Banks for examination prior to the publication of his paper. Bishopp 

 (see supra) states that Banks studied " all of the Marx material " and this 

 would seem to include Marx 120, 121, and 122. Banks, however, (1910, JAMA, 

 1574-1575) states that he never studied Marx 120 and 122 (namely the speci- 

 mens published by me in 1910 as D. venustus). If Banks' D. venustus is iden- 

 tical with Marx's D. venustus as published in Neumann, the species should 

 be attributed to Marx. 



24. Is D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, distinct from D. venustus Marx in 

 Neumann, 1897? If this represents the correct status of facts, then D. venustus 

 Banks, 1908, is a homonym of D. venustus 1897 and therefore cannot be used 

 as a valid name. 



25. Does D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, include D. venustus Marx in Neu- 

 mann, 1897, plus some other species? If this be the status of affairs, it is clear 

 that such portion of D. venustus of Banks, 1908, as agrees with D. venustus 

 1897 should be allocated to D. venustus 1897 and that the remaining portion 

 should be known under some other name. 



26. It would appear, therefore, that the crux of the problem lies in estab- 

 lishing the type specimen of D. venustus of Banks, 1908. The evidence at my 

 disposal, bearing on this point, is as follows : 



27. Banks has twice stated in letters that the type of his D. venustus of 

 1908 is in the Collection of the Bureau of Entomolgy. He has also stated in 

 a letter that " type label was placed on a certain vial of D. venustus at time 

 of publication." Bishopp states that Banks " used one of the males from 

 Soldier, Idaho, as type for his species." In the presence of Professor Ewing, 

 Dec. 6, 1920, I established the fact that there is in the National Museum a 

 specimen marked " Coll. Marx, Dermacentor venustus Marx Idaho," and that 

 the bottle contains a label, identified by Ewing as in Banks' handwriting, read- 

 ing "type" 



28. The Marx specimen from " Soldier, Idaho," No. 121, was in my labora- 

 tory at the time Banks visited me in order to examine Marx's specimens, and 

 it is not the specimen containing Banks' label "type." Banks (1910, JAMA, 

 1574-1575) states that his D. venustus 1908 is identical with my D. andersoni, 

 and this view is in harmony with the specimen which bears Banks' label 



1 



