126 THE entomologist's record. 



Notes on Pulex canis CurtisS and Pulex felis Bouche^ {with plate). 



By the Hon. N. C. ROTHSCHILD, B.A., F.L.S., F.E.S. 



Dr. Charles J. Patten, of Dublin, kindly forwarded me in November 

 last a fine series of fleas from the domestic cat. On further exami- 

 nation of this material, and after comparison with the specimens I 

 already had at hand, both from the domestic cat and dog, I felt con- 

 vinced that the fleas found on these animals were distinct species. 

 Kolenati" has already advanced this view ; his various distinctions, 

 however, are, without exception, erroneous, as Dr. Taschenberg^ has 

 already pointed out. Dr. Taschenberg, however, considering the fleas 

 from these two animals to be the same species, united them under the 

 new name of scrraticcjis. 



The accompanying figures, drawn by my friend Dr. K. Jordan, 

 represent the 9th and 10th abdominal segments of the males of these 

 two fleas. 



The chief distinguishing characters lie in the structure of the so- 

 called " movable-finger" of the ninth tergite, (a) in the figures, and 

 the shapes of the respective manubria, (c) in the figures. The 

 " movable-finger " of each species is drawn in optical section. In 

 Pulex felis there are a few more hairs on the surface of this organ 

 than in 1^. canis. The structure of its dorsal edge, moreover, is alto- 

 gether more rounded, and is produced further along the ventral edge 

 than in P. canis. In P. canis the ventral edge of the " movable- 

 finger " is much straighter than in P. felis. 



The manubrium of P. felis is almost of the same breadth along 

 its entire length, while in P. canis the anterior portion is considerably 

 broader than the posterior. These segments of Pulex canis have 

 already been figured by Landois'''. 



In the females a constant distinctive character appears to be absent. 

 Explanation of Plate IH. 



A. Pulex felis. Ninth tergite, c? . B. Pulc.r canis. Ninth segment, c? . 

 C. Pulex cania. Ninth sternite, cf (flattened out). 



1 Curtis, Brit. Ent., iii.. No. 114, Fig. A-E., Fig. 8 (182G). 



2 Bouche, Nor. Act. Acad. Leop. Carol., xvii., 1, p. .505 (1835). 



s Kolenati, Fauna de,^ Altvatem, p. (55 (1859), and Hor. Sac. Ent. Rons., ii. 

 p. L (1863). 



4 Taschenberg, Die Flohe, p. 77 (1880). 



5 Landois, Anatomie des Hundejlohes, Taf. vi. (1866). 



j^ClENTIFIC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 



Inquiline Cynipid.e — Shape of galls. — With reference to the para- 

 graph {antea, p. 19) relative to the Cijuipidae, the writer, I presume, 

 wishes to convey to your readers that the inquilines or guest-flies are 

 not parasites, this, however, is not my experience, for I only know of 

 two which are not — these are Si/ner(/u.s iiiela)u>pus and *S'. reinhardi, and 

 these two are true inquilines, infesting galls of Cijnips kollari — the 

 remainder of the British species, are certainly parasites. I will give 

 one instance out of many I could mention. In 1895 I tried to obtain 

 Xeurotcnis resicatri.r, and, in that year, I obtained 50 galls and only bred 

 inquilines and parasites. Last year I tried again and obtained over 

 100 galls with the same result, occasionally getting two inquilines out 

 of one of these small galls. It has been suggested that the cause may 



