416 



BUREAU OF A^^IMAL INDUSTRY. 



Fig, 110.— Ventral 

 view of Rhipiceph- 

 alus sanguineus. 



Fig. 111.— Stigmen 

 of same. Greatly 

 enlarged. Orig- 

 inal, 



There is some difference of opinion regarding the genus to which 

 the Texas fever tick belongs. While it was originally 

 placed in the genus Ixodes by both Say and Riley, Cur- 

 tice proposed for it a new genus, Bo- 

 ophihis^ and this name has been very 

 generally adopted by American authors 

 and even by the press. /Its validity is, 

 however, disputed. Undoubtedly the 

 Texas fever tick does not belong in 

 Ixodes^ and the question is whether it 

 should be placed in Bhipicephalus or 

 be made the basis of a distinct genus, 

 Boophihis. It must be admitted that 

 Boojpliiliis is by no means so clearly defined from Rhijpi- 

 cejyhalus as the latter is from Dermacentor^ Ilwm^aphys- 

 alis^ or Ixodes. On the other hand, it is to a certain extent different from 



the average Bhipicepha- 

 lus. Neumann, who has 

 examined more different 

 species of ticks than any 

 other author, and to 

 whose opinion, therefore, 

 great weight should be 

 attached, unhesitatingly 

 suppresses the genus Bo- 

 ophilus^ not giving to 

 it even subgeneric rank. 

 Ward, on the other hand, 

 inclines to look upon 

 BoojMlus as of generic 

 rank, and the late Dr. 

 Marx (1892) was of the 

 same opinion. Our own 

 view has been for some 

 years that Boophilus 

 should be given at least 

 subgeneric rank under 

 Bhipice])hahcs. 



The point at issue is of 

 both theoretical and prac- 

 tical importance. Under 

 existing circumstances, 

 we consider it better in 

 the present paper to hold 

 to the name Boojjhilus^ recognizing this as a distinct genus. We are 



Fig. 112.— Ventral outline of an undetermined Ehipicephalus 

 from a dog. Porto Rico. Original. 



