﻿246 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 102 



specimens identified by Bere as PupuUna flores are referable to the 

 smaller of the two new species. 



A new description, based on the Wilson and Bere specimens, has 

 been prepared for the genotype, as much detail having specific value 

 has been previously omitted. Development forms, present in his ma- 

 terial and not mentioned by Wilson, are also described. 



For critical readings of the manuscript I am indebted to Dr. Charles 

 H. Martin, of Oregon State College, and to Paul L. lUg, of the United 

 States National Museum. 



HOST RECORDS 



According to each of the three published instances of the occurrence 

 of PupuUna, it has been found on a species of large ray belonging 

 to the family Mobulidae. From this fact and MacGinitie's discovery 

 it would appear that the genus may be a specific parasite of this 

 group of rays. It seems very probable that records of its occurrence 

 have been infrequent because the hosts themselves are seldom caught. 



In this connection, it is necessary to qualify Wilson's statement 

 (1935a, p. 593) that his specimens, taken near the Galapagos Islands, 

 were from ^^Manta Mrostris, the same species of fish as that from 

 which Beneden's specimens were collected." Van Beneden did not 

 so name the species of the host, merely alluding to it as Ceraptopterus. 

 The latter is a genus of Coleoptera, and so far as is known to jne, 

 the name has not been used in the fishes. From van Beneden's de- 

 scription of the size of the host, it is probably safe to assume that he 

 had confused the name with Geratoptera Miiller and Henle, a 

 synonym of Manta. Van Beneden's specimens occurred off the Azores, 

 a locality considerably removed from the Galapagos, and whether the 

 host was the identical species of Manta is certainly open to question. 



Genus PUPULINA P. J. van Beneden 



PupuUna VAN Beneden, 1892, p. 254. — C'. B. Wilson, 1935a, p. 593. 



Diagnosis (emended). — Body form of more or less specific varia- 

 bility in females ; strikingly similar in males. 



Frontal plates well defined, without lunules. First three thoracic 

 segments fused with head ; fourth segment free, without dorsal plates. 

 Lateral, cephalic, and thoracic areas of carapace demarcated dorsally 

 by well-defined grooves ; ventral supporting ribs of lateral areas stout, 

 the posterior of double rods, their outlines usually conspicuous 

 dorsally. 



Genital segment of female moderately enlarged, its width greater 

 than that of free segment, about one-half to three-fifths that of 

 carapace; the posterior corners produced into backwardly directed 



5^2 



