4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. ~ VOL. 62. 
nymph. This is not always true, however, for in some of his drawings 
it is easy to recognize whether a male, female, or nymph is repre- 
sented. Kolenati’s genera are here taken up according to their page 
preference. 
Liponyssus.—This monobasic genus is the one most commonly 
used at present to include all the members of the family Dermanyssidae 
that have the chelicerae shearlike in both sexes. It has page prefer- 
ence over Kolenati’s othe genera, and for this reason some workers 
consider all the other genera of Kolenati as synonyms of this one. 
Kolenati gave three drawings of the type species of this genus, one 
being a dorsal view of an adult. The ventral view which he gives is 
either of a nymph or a female, probably the latter. The characters 
of the single, large, dorsal shield of the adult figured, together with 
what other characters that can be gleaned from Kolenati’s descrip- 
tion, are sufficient to show that this species belongs in the group 
having the broad shield with a broad, evenly rounded posterior border, 
and is nearly related to Liponyssus corethroproctus Oudemans. 
Ichoronyssus, Kolenati’s second genus, which included a number 
of species, was for along time ignored. Recently (1915) Hirst gives 
this genus as being equal to Leiognathus Canestrini, a generic name 
which he had accepted previously as being practically equal to the 
Liponyssus Kolenati as interpreted by Banks and Oudemans. He 
adds, however, that Jchoronyssus Kolenati as he would use the genus is 
‘probably not that of Kolenati.’’ The species which Hirst places in 
Ichoronyssus Kolenati has two dorsal shields in the case of the female. 
All of the species figured by Kolenati under the generic name of 
Ichoronyssus have the dorsal shield entire. In fact, he specifically 
relegates those species with a divided dorsal shield to two of his other 
genera. The present writer believes that the genus Ichoronyssus 
Kolenati can be retained only by selecting with some care the proper 
genotype. One of the species included by Kolenati, scutatus, is suffi- 
ciently different and characteristic from the others to be used for a 
genus which should not be reduced to synonymy. Around this 
species as a type several of our more recently described species group 
themselves, and, luckily, all show a correlation of characters suffi- 
ciently important to be used as generic. 
Macronyssus included two species, longimanus and lepidopeltis. 
Oudemans (1903) gives complete descriptions of nymph, male, and 
female of lepidopeltis together with many drawings. This species is 
not so very different from Liponyssus lacertinus (Berlese) and evidently 
belongs to the setosus group, for which L. setosus Kolenati stands as 
a monobasic type. The other species, longimanus, for which Kolenati 
gives a good drawing of a ventral view of a female and dorsal view of 
an adult, evidently belongs to the setosus group. ‘Therefore, it ap- 
pears that Macronyssus should fall into synonymy under Laponyssus, 
the latter genus having page preference. 
