J1 



76 M. O. Strobelt on the Anatomy and 



Linn£ mentions as a second species : 

 " 2. Pediculus Vituli Bo vis : abdomine plumbeo. 

 u Suecis Blalaus. 

 u Habitat in Bobus. 



u Descr. Pnecedenti maior : abdomine ventricoso, acumi- 

 nata, eseruleo-fusco ; pedibus brevibus, crassis, griseis, ut et 



capite et thorace griseis. 



The question now is, whether this Pediculus vituli, Linn., is 

 identical with Hcematopinus eurysternus, N., or with H. tenui- 

 rostris, Burm. 



Piaget says, " Linn6 doe3 not cite the other species, the 

 eurysternus, and seems to have been acquainted only with the 

 vituli)" but this statement can by no means serve in support 

 of his doubts a§ to the existence or specific right of Hcema- 

 topinus tenuirostris. Linne actually knew only this one 

 species ; but whether it is //. eurysternus or tenuirostris must 

 be ascertained by the comparison of the animals with his de- 

 scription. All other authors agree in regarding Pediculus 

 vituli, Linn., and Hcematopinus tenuirostris, Burm., as one 

 and the same species. Once, indeed, Nitzsch* seems inclined 

 to identify Pediculus vituli, Linn., with his P. (Hceni.) eury- 

 sternus, as appears from the query, u An hue Fed. vituli, 

 Linn ? " Linne's description is certainly any thing but 

 exact; but from the words u Abdomine C9eruieo-fusco,et capite 

 et thorace griseis/' it appears clearly and distinctly that P. 

 vituli, Linn,, is identical only with Hcematopinus tenuirostris, 

 Burm. 



Piaget says further, u Denny and Giebel rarely give sexual 

 diflerences ; it may be that they have described the female 

 of eurysternusy without paying any attention to the male. 

 Now this male, which is much narrower, has the head some- 

 what pointed, and appears to me to be their tenuirostris. 

 Must we then admit two different species? Denny had seen 

 only two individuals ( $ or $ ?) obtained from a calf ; he 

 never found any on Bos taurus. Giebel, however, declares 

 it to be very common, very widely distributed." 



Piaget may be perfectly right in saying that Denny and 

 Giebel do not frequently indicate sexual differences ; but that 

 both of them have taken the male of //. eurysternus for the 

 species tenuirostris described by them is, from their descrip- 

 tions and figures, quite inadmissible. Although, as 1 readily 

 agree with Piaget, these two authors have certainly not en- 

 deavoured too strenuously to attain accuracy in their figures, 

 the difference in the figures is too great to allow us to suppose 

 that the two species are identical. From the figures, defec- 



* Germai V Magazin, Bet. iii. p. 305. 



