lO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



name " Dermacentor andersoni" in referring to this tick which Wilson & 

 Chowning (1902, 1903, 1904) and Anderson (1903) had incriminated as vector 

 of the supposed Piroplasma hominis. Zoological characters are not cited and 

 so far as this article is concerned, the name Dermacentor andersoni rests 

 solely upon the geographic distribution of the tick and the earlier claims that 

 this arachnoid is the vector of the disease. 



35. Later, Stiles (1907, 10-12) presented to the Entomological Society of 

 Washington dravi^ings of D. andersoni, D. venustus, D. occidentalis, etc., 

 demonstrating the dififerential characters on which the species in question are 

 recognizable, but these names were not published in the Secretary's minutes 

 of the meeting. Mr. Banks was present and discussed the paper. 



36. After the meeting, Mr. Banks asked to examine some of the specimens 

 and was invited to do so. For this purpose he visited my laboratory (exact 

 date unknown, but between Jan. 10, 1907 and June 6, 1908). I placed before 

 him the manuscript, drawings, and specimens, and a miscroscope; he used 

 his own hand lens. Among the specimens placed before him were "Marx 120, 

 121, 122." Mr. Banks examined some of the drawings and specimens ; as he 

 was received as a guest he was free to do this. 



37. Upon the publication of D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, Stiles, in the hope 

 of forestalling further confusion, published (1908m, 949) a short note giving 

 some of the more important differential characters. 



38. Later, Stiles (1910, 36-46) published his delayed manuscript, describ- 

 ing and figuring in detail D. andersoni Stiles (type No. 9467, from Wood- 

 man, Mont.) (giving D. venustus pars of Banks, 1908, as synonym) and 

 D. venustus Marx, 1897, in Neumann, 1897 (type Marx 122 from Texas) giv- 

 ing D. venustus pars of Banks, 1908, as synonym). 



Discussion. — The present case, to my mind, is much less com- 

 plicated than the argument submitted would indicate. 



The facts appear to be as follows : 



I. In 1897 G. Neumann (Mem. Soc. Zool. France, vol. lo, pp. 

 324-420) published a " Revision de la famille des Ixodides," in which 

 under the specific heading of Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabricius), 

 up to that time known only from the Old World, he says on p. 365 : 

 " La Collection du Depart, of Agriculture de Washington et celle de 

 la Smithsonian Institution en \i. e., D. reticulatus] contiennent 

 plusieurs males et femelles receuilles aussi en Californie, sur le Daim, 

 et etiquetes par G. Marx D. occidentalis. D'autres proviennent de 

 Texas et du Noveau-Mexique et sont etiquetes D. venustus." There 

 is no further reference to these specimens, and this is the first pub- 

 lished reference to Dermacentor venustus. Although there is no de- 

 scription, the name is not a nomem nudum, since according to Opinion 

 53 it has a nomenclatorial status that cannot be ignored. The case 

 is absolutely comparable, though not quite identical, with that of 

 Halicampus grayi, quoted only in synonymy as being in the British 

 Museum, but not described, regarding which Opinion 53 says that 

 " there can be no question but that Halicampus grayi has been pub- 



