NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 9 



" type." How and whether this specimen changed from the Bureau of Ento- 

 mology Collection to the Marx Collection is as yet not clear. 



29. Judged from the specimen containing Banks' label " type," D. venustus 

 n. sp. Banks, 1908, falls, therefore, as a homonym of D. venustus Marx in 

 Neumann, 1897, and it is either a synonym or it is not a synonym. To deter- 

 mine this latter point, it is necessary to examine Stiles (1910) who reexamined 

 the specimens (Marx 120 and 121 from New Mexico and Texas) of D. venu- 

 stus Marx published by Neumann, 1897. Specimen 122 (mentioned by Neu- 

 mann) and selected by Stiles as type is specifically distinct from the specimen 

 which bears Banks' label as representing the type of D. venustus Banks, 1908. 

 As this was the first selection of any specimen of tlie Marx-Neumann (1897) 

 material as type, and as the Idaho material was not available as type, since 

 it was not mentioned by Neumann (although Marx 121 from a mountain goat, 

 at Soldier, Idaho, was examined by him), a comparison of the type speci- 

 mens in question, namely, Marx 120 (type of D. venustus Marx in Neumann, 

 1897, as published by Stiles, 1910) with Marx No. 10 C'type of D. venustus 

 Banks, 1908, according to the label in Banks' handwriting, but not entirely in 

 harmony with his correspondence) appears therefore to settle the question 

 that nomenclatorially D. venustus 1908 is not absolutely (from point of view 

 of type specimen) synonymous with D. venustus 1897. Accordingly, the name 

 D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, drops as a homonym. 



30. It next becomes necessary to enquire into the valid name for the species 

 represented by D. venustus n. sp. Banks. 1908 {nee Marx in Neumann, 1897) 

 incriminated as vector of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. 



31. The systematic history of this tick is indeed complicated, owing to the 

 difficulties connected with specific determinations. It has been studied by 

 Marx, Neumann, Banks, and Stiles, all four of whom were fairly familiar 

 with the group. These specialises confused the species with: D. occidentalis, 

 D. venustus, D. elcctus. and D. rcticulatns. These various species were not 

 all clearly and definitely defined from each other until 1910, although all four 

 of the authors just mentioned, and other authors also, had at various times 

 determined a number of specimens correctly. 



32. Anderson collected in the Bitter Root Valley some ticks which Wilson 

 & Chowning and Anderson had incriminated as the vector of the Rocky 

 Mountain Spotted Fever. Stiles (in Anderson, 1903, 21) made a provisional 

 determination of this material as Dernioccntor reiicnlatus. 



Z2- Stiles (1904 i(m), 1649 (363)) obtained from the Bitter Root Valley 

 a considerable amount of tick material which agreed with the tick which Wil- 

 son & Chowning (1902, 1903, 1904) and Anderson (1903) had incriminated 

 as the vector of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Stiles states : 



"6. The tick most common in the valley is a dermacentor which is 

 very closely allied to D. reticulatus. The data now at my disposal indi- 

 cates, however, that it represents a distinct species." 



" 7. These ticks are common on horses, cattle, and dogs, and more or 

 less frequent on man, but there is nothing to indicate that a hibernating 

 animal is necessary for their development ; in fact, indications (seasonal 

 distribution) are not entirely lacking that the spermophile forms a more 

 or less accidental host for this species.*' 

 34. Later, Stiles (i905f, 7, 22, 24) in discussing his negative results as to 

 the piroplasmic nature of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, uses the new 



