NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 II 



lished in connection with a bibliographic reference, and in connection 

 with a description, and on this account the name must be considered 

 as dating from 1856." As Opinion 53 is in force and consequently is 

 part of the Code, it is clear that Dermacentor vemistus as a published 

 and available specific name dates from 1897. But it is also unidenti- 

 fiable from the published data then available. Dr. Neumann himself 

 apparently thought it the same as reticulatus, but he gives no data 

 by which it can be determined from his publication whether he was 

 right or wrong. The reference to certain localities can have no bearing, 

 nor is there any indication that he referred to actual type specimens. 

 Marx's type specimens may have been examined, or they may not, 

 as far as contemporaneous published evidence is concerned. 



The next appearance of the name in any publication is in 1908 

 when Banks (A Revision of the Ixodoidea, or Ticks, of the United 

 States, June 6, 1908, p. 46, pi. 8, figs. 4, 5, 7) described Dermacentor 

 vemistus as a new species without reference to Marx's manuscript 

 name of 1897 in Neumann. He mentions neither a type specimen, nor 

 does he give any single type locality. He says : " Specimens come from 

 various places in the West : Olympia, Yakima, Klikitat Valley, and 

 Grand Coulee, Wash. ; Fort Collins and Boulder, Colo. ; Pecos and 

 Las Cruces, N. Mex. ; Bozeman, Mont. ; Bridger Basin, Utah ; vSoldier, 

 Idaho; and Texas (on sheep)." On page 48, under D. occidentalis, 

 he says : " Neumann first considered D. occidentalis and D. vemistus 



of Marx as identical with the European D. reticulatus When 



he described D. occidentalis, Neumann included with it D. vemistus 

 of the Marx manuscript. However, I have restricted the name to the 

 form to which Marx applied it." This last sentence is not strictly 

 correct. When Neumann described D. reticulatus occidentalis, which 

 was done in January, 1905 (Arch. Parasitol., Paris, vol. 9, no. 2, 

 p. 235), he did not mention D. vemistus at all; he only recognized 

 several J* and $ collected on " le Daim," California, and labeled 

 D. occidentalis by G. Marx, as a distinguishable subspecies [variete] 

 of the species D. reticulatus, in other words, in 1905 he recognized 

 his species D. reticulatus of 1897, as a complex one including still 

 the material which Marx had labeled D. vemistus, and with the right 

 of the first reviser he separated out and fixed the name of D. occi- 

 dentalis. But he did nothing to D. venustus; he still kept it in the 

 synonymy of D. reticulatus. Banks, however, in 1908, accepted Neu- 

 mann's action as first reviser, as far as D. occidentalis is concerned 

 (recognizing it however as full species), but went a step further and 

 exercised his right as next reviser to segregate Marx's D. venustus 

 out of the complex D. reticulatus of Neumann 1897. In the 



