Ax^TALS OF THE TkA^^SYxIAL MuSEUM. 



115. 



and projects slightly beyond the shield on the lateral and posterior margins, 

 the caudal prolongation also usually appearing at this time. 



1 have Ijeen unahle to obtain or rear tlie immature stages of each 

 species, so that the study of these stages is incomplete. 



The following discussion, together with the heys, may serve to make 

 the distinctions Ijetween the species more apparent. The drawings in the 

 plates are luade from what seemed typical specimens, and will proliably 

 assist most in studying this difficult genus. 



Males of Ehipicephalus. (See Plates VIII and IX.) 



Among the males, evertsl is probably the most readily recognised, 

 because of its shagreened shield and also its saffron-coloured legs. Besides 

 this the eyes are spherical and in orbits {VIII, a). 



E. oculatus resembles it closely in the matter of the eyes, but altliough 

 the punctuations on the shield are numerous, fine, and almost equal, they 

 do not coalesce so as to give a shagreened appearance {VIII, 1)). 



In capensis the shield is shagreened, but here the eyes are not spherical,, 

 but flattened on the lateral margins {VIII, c). 



R. sanguineus is the type species of the genus. The punctuating of 

 the dorsal shield is here very distinct ; the punctures are unequal in size, 

 the smaller ones, more numerous, do not coalesce, but are regularly dis- 

 tributed ; the larger punctuations are fewer in number and are arranged 

 in more or less regular fashion. There is a narrow posterior groove, with 

 a large, oval, shallow^ pit on each side of it, with further forward two wider, 

 smooth impressions ; the caudal prolongation is very short or may be want- 

 ing {VIII, e). Another species known as piuicfatissinius was originally 

 described by (lerstacker, and differed from saiH/iiiiieiis in the punctures being 

 distributed more irregularly on the shield. Later studies made by Donitz 

 seem to show that this species is synonymous with sanguineus or at most 

 only a variety of the latter species, 



IL appendiculatus. — This species, together with bursa, have caused con- 

 siderable confusion ; appendiculatus is easily recognisable by the elongate, 

 slender caudal prolongation, but where this is not present the punctuation 

 IS typical {VIII, d). The large punctuations are mostly confined to 'the 

 anterior end of tlie shield, but in a large area on each side at about the 

 middle of the length of the shield the punctuations are very scarce and 

 very su]3erficial. There is not so much difference in the size between the 

 large f,nd small lamctuations as is the case with sanguineus and other species 

 of Bhipiceplialus. The anal plates are also characteristic, bofh ends are 

 pointed ({uite sharplv, and the accessorv anal ])lates are only indicated or 

 lacking. 



B. bursa might be easily confused with appendiculatus, were it not 

 for the anal plates, which are very broad, and not narrow and slender as 

 in appendiculatus, there are also very small and slender accessory plates 

 present. The punctuations of the dorsal shield are more even in size 

 and distributed evenly over all its extent, a few large punctuations do 

 exist, but they are situated near the margins and anterior end {VIII, //). 

 The punctuations bring it near to capensis, which is, however, shagreened.. 



R. simus is quickly recognised. It is larger than appendiculatus, 

 and the shield is almost black in colour and polished so as to shine 



