of the genus Haemaphy salis of the Ixodidae. 509 
of the female he confounded the true female and that of the form 
now named H. campcmulata, for he described the scutum as oval, 
and bright yellow or earthy yellow, whereas the true flava has a 
bright yellow scutum as broad as long, while the scutum of 
H. campamdcita is darker, and longer than broad. It is clear that 
the true H. flava must be a strikingly yellow Japanese species 
with a long-spurred male — the species, indeed, which is re-de- 
scribed below. 
What, then, is Neumann’s short-spurred “H. flava”? 
Donitz thought it was the species subsequently described by 
him as H. neumanni. But this, by virtue of the dorsal spine on 
the 3rd article of the palp, obviously belongs to the H. hispinosa 
group, and it is probably through mere inadvertence that it was 
found among Neumann’s H. flavas. The British Museum speci- 
mens make it clear that it was the species here called H. japonnica 
which Neumann had in view, for it does bear a close general 
resemblance to the true H. flava, though it differs from it other- 
wise than in the coxal armature. It is less easy to see how 
H. campanulata could have been confounded with H. flava, for 
it has quite a different facies, but as it was sent to us as H. flava 
and is also among the British Museum specimens, the fact is 
sufficiently attested. The re-arrangement here proposed seems 
to clear up all the difficulties. 
We next come to the H. hispinosa group, undoubtedly the 
most troublesome of the whole genus. Their salient character- 
istic is the presence of a dorsal as well as a ventral retrogade 
spine on the third palpal article, and (in our view) four species 
are concerned, H. hystricis, Supino, II. hispinosa, Neumann, H. 
parmata, Neumann and H. neumanni, Donitz *. 
In 1897 Neumann described the female H. hispinosa from a 
young Indian specimen. In 1901 he described the male and 
modified his description of the female from specimens received 
from China, and in 1902, on examining the surviving remnants of 
Supino’s types, he was led to the conclusion that his hispinosa was 
Supino’s hystricis (from Burma), and he accordingly degraded the 
species hispinosa to a synonym of hystricis. 
Now it seems probable that Neumann erred in supposing the 
Chinese specimens identical with his original Indian hispinosa, 
but that they were the true hystricis, which his original Indian 
specimen was not. On examining a large collection of Indian ticks, 
in 1907, I found many specimens of a species which I identified 
from Neumann’s description as H. hispinosa, and which that 
description, as regards size, shape of the female scutum etc., fits 
much better than it does the specimen of H. hystricis which 
* H. wellingtoni, Nuttall and Warburton, possesses somewhat similar spines, 
but in general character it conforms to the II. leachi group. 
