508 Mr Warburton, On some new and obscure species 
On some new and obscure species of the genus Haemapliy satis 
of the Ixodidae. By C. Warburton, M.A., Christ’s College. 
[Received 7 April 1908.] 
The genus Haemaphysalis presents special difficulties to the 
systematist on account of the absence of characteristics which 
are of great specific value in other genera. There are no colour- 
markings, no eyes, no anal plates in the male. Moreover many of 
the species are feebly chitinised, and their differences therefore less 
pronounced. Hence it is not surprising that considerable confusion 
has arisen with regard to certain closely allied forms, especially the 
groups of which H. flava, Neumann, and H. bispinosa , Neumann, 
are respectively the centres, and the fact that these groups require 
revision does not detract in the least from the value of the 
admirable work done by Neumann in the classification of ticks. 
To deal first with H. flava. Four distinct forms seem to have 
been confused, namely: 
(1) The true H. flava, redescribed below, 
(2) The species described below as H. japonnica, 
(3) The species described below as H. campanulata , 
(4) H. neumanni, Donitz. 
The following considerations lead to this conclusion. Exami- 
nation of the specimens at the British Museum (identified by 
Neumann) revealed the presence of forms (1), (2) and (3) in the 
jar labelled H. flava. Examples of “ H . flava” kindly lent by 
Neumann, proved to be the form (3), H. campanulata. Thirdly, 
according to Donitz (1905), yet another form had been considered 
as H. flava by Neumann, and this Donitz removed to a new 
species, H. neumanni. 
Of these four species, then, which is the true H. flava ? 
Neumann originally (1897) described the male as having a 
long spur on coxa 4. Subsequently (1905) he stated that he 
found two closely similar forms, one with a long spur and one 
with a short spur, and, quite inadmissibly, he then set up the 
short-spurred form as the type and removed the long-spurred form 
to a variety, H. flava, var. armata. This evidently cannot stand, 
and the type must be long-spurred. If there is any variety in 
question it is the short-spurred form, but we believe this to be a 
different species altogether — the species here described as H. 
japonnica. 
Unfortunately it wou d seem that in the original description 
