426 Genus Haemapliysidis 



1 ? from Sas celebensis, presented by Hon. N. C. Rothschild. Formosa : 

 (Berlin ^lus. No. 174) cT ? from wild boar, Taihorni, vi. 1911, collected 

 bv H. Sauter. 



19. HAEMAPHYSALIS BISPINOSA Neumann, 1897. 



Figs. 358-362. 



Lit., Syn. and Icon, : 



Ua^maphijsalis bispinosa Neumann, 1897, pp. :341-342, Figs. 7, 8 ( $ palp in 



dorsal aspect, tarsus IV, reproduced). Blanchard, 1909, p. 148 ; merely 



listed. 

 Not Haemaphysalis bispinosa Nn. in Neumann, 1901, pp. 261-262. 

 Not Haemaphysdlis hi/stricis Supino, as stated in Neumann, 1902 (t, p. 128. 

 Haemaphysalis bispinosa in Warburton, vi. 1907, p. 11, Fig. 9 (poor) incomplete 



description ; 1908, pp. .")1 7-518, Figs. 9-10 {$ dorsum, part of venter, 



spiracle ; $ scutum and capitulum, spiracle and tarsus IV ; sketchy, not 



reproduced). 

 Haemaphysalis neumanni Donitz, 1905, pp. 127-129, 134, Figs. 4-6 (reproduced). 



We have co-types. 

 Not Haemaphysalis birmaniae Supino, as stated in Neumann, 1911 a, p. 109. 

 Haemaphysalis neumanni Donitz, in Neumann, 1911 a, p. 109. 

 1 Haemaphysalis neumanni Donitz, in Galli-Valerio, 1909, p. 539, found on ' 



Canis aureus, Ceylon, 1907, Dr Narbel coll. ; Yakimoff and Kohl-Yakimotf, 



1911, p. 418. (They record 6 $ from cattle coming from China, Primorsk 



Government, E. Siberia.) 

 Haemaphysalis bispinosa in Patton and CVagg, 1913, p. 648 (raised on mongoose), 



PI. LXXIII, Fig. 11 ; ? capitulum in ventral aspect ; PI. LXXXI, Figs. 



5, 6, ^ dorsum and (?) 5 venter (legend confused). 



There has been a great deal of confusion about this species: Neumann 

 (1897) founded the species hispinosa on a single $ from Ramnad, India, 

 the description being fortunately accompanied by figures (Fig. 361 a 

 and h here reproduced). In 1901 he described the ^ and % of what 

 was evidently another species under the name of " hispinosa" ; these ticks 

 came from Japan and China. The second description agrees with that 

 of H. hystricis Supino, 1897. In 1902, Neumann, after examining 

 Supine's types, regarded hispinosa as identical with " hystricis" and 

 (wrongly) gave the latter name priority. He had evidently been led 

 astray by his second description of the purported " hispinosa " and the 

 fact, which he mentions, that Supine's types (</ ? ) are devoid of 

 capitulums. 



Donitz (1905), like ourselves, perceived the confusion which had 

 arisen, and to clear up matters selected one of the forms described as 



