108 Classification 



1. Ixodae (Genera Ixodes, Eschatocephalus, Aponomma, Amblyomma 

 and Hyalomma), 2. Rhipicephalae (Genera Haemaphy sails, Rhipicephalus 

 and Dermacentor); and II. Argasinae (Genera A rgas and Ornithodoros). 



Salmon and Stiles (1901, p. 384), whilst following Neumann with 

 regard to the grouping of the various genera, raise the ticks to the 

 rank of a superfamily, as had been done by Banks. They simply raise 

 Neumann's subfamilies and tribes to the rank of families and sub- 

 families respectively. Their classification is as follows : Superfamily 

 Ixodoidea comprising two families: I. Argasidae (Genera Argas 

 and Ornithodoros), and II. Ixodidae, including two subfamilies: 

 1. Rhipicephalinae 1 (Genera Rhipicephalus, Boophilus, Haemaphy salis 

 and Dermacentor), and 2. Ixodinae (Genera Ixodes, Eschatocephalus, 

 Aponomma, Amblyomma and Hyalomma). 



Neumann next (1902, p. 115) established the genus Geratixodes. 

 In 1904, p. 444, he created the subgenus Euixodes, to include all 

 Ixodes other than Geratixodes and Eschatocephalus, both of which were 

 degraded to subgenera. (We include all of these in the one genus 

 Ixodes in this work, see pp. 133-135, and do not see a valid reason 

 for retaining the subgenera.) 



Neumann (1904, p. 444) attempted, further, to order the genera of 

 his subfamily Ixodinae according to their real affinities, a task, as we 

 have seen, previously attempted by Canestrini (1890), and Marx (1892). 

 Nevertheless, the original order adopted by C. L. Koch (1844), depending 

 upon the relative length of the palps, had hitherto been generally 

 accepted, and was until now retained by Neumann. 



As pointed out by Neumann (1904, p. 445), the relative length of 

 a single structure like the capitulum does not give a safe basis for 

 classification, since, in the absence of type specimens for purposes of 

 comparison, it leaves too much to the personal judgment of the 

 naturalist in defining what is "long" and what is "short." Although 

 of undoubted use, the division of Ixodinae into the two tribes mentioned 

 is unnatural and misleading, since it leads to misconceptions regarding 

 the real relationships existing between the genera. Thus Ixodes and 

 Hyalomma, included in Tribe 1, are not nearly so closely related as 

 Hyalomma and Rhipicephalus, the latter serving as the type of Tribe 2. 

 Moreover, the presence or absence of eyes, whilst of generic value, is of 

 no value as a means of ordering the genera according to their affinities, 



1 Lahille (1905, p. 12) remarks that the subfamily should be styled Dennacentorinae 

 and not Rhipicephalinae, if the rules of nomenclature are to be strictly adhered to, for 

 Dermacentor (Koch, 1844, p. 235) has priority over Rhipkephalm (Koch, 1844, p. 238). 



