378 Genus Haemaj)/i //sails 



name cinnabainna, has forced upon us a change of nomenclature which 

 we only adopt with reluctance in view of the large amount of literature 

 connected with the name H. punctata. The specimens of " H. chordeilis " 

 to which we first had access did not, in their general facies, strongly 

 recall "H. punctata," though when examined point by point their 

 diiferences were unimportant. 



Koch's t3'po of //. cinnaharina is a dried specimen not well preserved, 

 and it was with some hesitation that we admitted its identity with 

 '\H. punctata." This hesitation is explained as soon as it is recognised 

 that there are two varieties of the species, and that the type specimen, 

 which came from Brazil, belongs to the American variety. The 

 American form thus necessarily becomes the type variety. Under the 

 circumstances wc have thought it better to depart from our usual 

 procedure in dealing with a variety, and instead of merely indicating 

 the points which distinguish it from the type form, we have allowed to 

 stand the full description we had prepared of H. punctata — now 

 H. cinnaharina var. punctata — when we believed "H. chordeilis" to be 

 generically distinct. 



Varietal Differences : The main differences between H. cinnaharina 

 and H. cinnaharina var. punctata will be seen at a glance by reference 

 to the figures. In the type the body of the (/ is broader, the dorsal 

 furrows more distinct, palpal article 2 more protruding, the spur on 

 coxa IV straighten In the % palpal article 2 has a more sharply 

 protruding external angle. In the o and L the differences are slight. 



Haemaphysalis cinnabarina var. punctata 

 (Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877). 



Plates VIII-XI and Text-tigs. 321-:324. 



Lit., Icon, and Synon. : 



Haemaphysalis punctata Canestriui and Fanzago, 1877, p. 121 (reprint) and 

 1877-1878, p. 189. The original description refers onlj to the ^ and 9 '"^"d 



is so brief that it would be impossible to recognise the species by it. 1890. 



Cauestrini, pp. 523, 525, PI. XLI, Figs. 6 and 6a, gives a fairly accurate 

 description, especially of the $ ; the figures of the cJ venter and capitulum 

 are inaccurate but show the main characters. All the points in his 

 description, except a few measurements, are included in Neumann, 1907, 

 pp. .327-.330. — ■ — 1891. Berlese, fasc. 58, PI. X, gives an inaccurate coloured 

 figure of the ^, also poor figures of the ^ venter, capitulum, palp, spiracle 

 and of the $ dorsum venter and spiracle. 1895. Pocock, p. .326, records 



