518 Mr Warburton, On some new and obscure species 
it cannot possibly be the species intended by Neumann’s original 
description of bispinosa, but a much larger and more chitinised 
form. Neumann gives the size of his young $ bispinosa as 
2 x 05 mm. The breadth given is no doubt an error, and should 
probably be V5 mm., but even so it is far too small for hystricis. 
Our unfed $ measured 3 mm. and its scutum alone T2 x T5 mm. 
Again he describes the scutum as “ lozenge-shaped.” This could 
not by any means apply to hystricis, which has a scutum elliptical 
and broader than long. Moreover his specimen was from India, 
and his description and figures agree well with a species which 
we have found to be fairly common in India and Ceylon, and 
which is here fully described. 
Haemaphysalis hystricis, Supino 1897. 
Syn. H. bispinosa, Neumann 1901 ( non Neumann 1897). 
Female (unfed). L. = 3 mm., broad oval, yellow. Scutum 
elliptical, broader than long (12 x 15 mm.). Broad, shallow, 
Fig. 11. H. hystricis, ? . Dorsum, 
coxae and spiracle. 
nearly parallel cervical grooves ; no lateral grooves, punctate all 
over. Dorsum with well-marked marginal grooves, including two 
festoons. 
Venter : spiracle whitish, circular, with well-marked dorsal 
process. 
Capitulum (’7 mm. long): base rectangular (’6 mm. broad), with 
blunt cornua ; porose areas very small and far apart, oval, con- 
verging in front. Palps only slightly salient, the lateral contour 
of articles 2 and 3 only slightly interrupted, a fairly strong dorsal 
retrograde spine on article 3, and a stronger ventral retrograde 
spine on the same article. Hypostome almost entirely covered by 
