SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT. 



421 



present in posterior half, may be very indistinct; posterior margin of body divided 

 into festoons which may be only slightly marked. Relatively large circular pores, 

 with extruding short bristly hairs, scattered over entire surface. Eyes small and 

 pale, often problematic, at I intercoxal space. Ventral surface lighter than dorsal, 

 all portions provided with short stout hairs; genital pore, broad, transverse, between 

 coxpe II; anus slightly posterior of stigmal plane; two pairs of anal plates (clypei): 

 one i^air elongate, rectangular to triangular, close to anus, in some cases extending 

 cephalad to middle of coxfc IV, and caudad to near or beyond posterior margin, the 

 anus being about at the middle of the length, in other cases extending from height 

 of middle of stigmal area to beyond posterior margin of body; the median border 

 longer than lateral border, the former prolonged into a point posteriorly, the postero- 

 lateral margin may be nearly straight, or somewhat curved, or irregular in outline, 

 thus presenting broad tooth-like projections; lateral and contiguous to each of these 

 shields is found another shield somewhat similar in form but smaller in size. Median 

 caudal appendage absent. Capitulum 450 to 500/^ long, base similar to that of the 

 female, but a little straighter, longer, more salient in front of dorsal shield, into 

 which it penetrates by a sort of rectangular neck, lateral projections not very promi- 

 nent. Mandibles 600// long, digit about 90//; internal apophysis with straight base 

 and broad bifide point; external apophysis bidentate, the terminal subventral tooth 

 may be very small while the proximal tooth is strong and large, or both may be large. 

 Hypostome similar to that of female, four distinct rows of teeth on each half. Palpi 

 about 190// long, similar to those of female. Legs strong; coxse large, those on each 



243.— DiNwiDDiE, 1892, p. 7.— Osborn, 1896, p. 257.] [See also Neumann, 



1896, p. 11.— Idem, 1897, p. 408.— Ward, 1900b, p. 437, as syn. of Rhlpiecph- 

 alus annulatus.'] 



1869: Ixodes indentatus Gamgee, 1869, p. 121, fig. lS=Ixodes bovis renamed. 



1891: Boophilus {Ixodes) bovis (Riley) Curtice, 1891, p. 313.— Idem, 1891b, p. 680.— 

 Morgan, 1894, p. 1004. 



1891: Boophilus bovis (Riley) Curtice, 1891a, pp. 313-319.— Idem, 1891b, pp. 680- 

 686.— Idem, 1892a, pp. 1-7.— Idem, 1892b, pp. 226, 231, 232.— Idem, 1892c, 

 pp. 237-252, pis. I, II.— Idem, 1896, pp. 649-655.— Idem, 1897a, p. 24.— 

 Marx, 1892, p. 236.— Dinwiddie, ,1892, pp. 7-14.— Riley & Howard, 1893, 

 p. 267.— Francis, 1894, p. 451.— Idem, 1895, pp. 210-213.— Miller, 1895, p. 

 11.— Fuller, 1896, pp. 760-787, pis. i-v [in part only].— Lugger, 1896, 

 pp. 119, 120, fig. 57.— Osborn, 1896, pp. 257-260, pis. jv-v.— Connaway, 



1897, pp. 85, 89, 97, figs. 1, 2, 5.— Hunt, 1897, pp. 231-233.— Lewis, 1897, p. 

 8.— Mayo, 1897, pp. 125, 126, 127, 129, fig. 1.— Dalrymple, Morgan, and 

 DoDsoN, 1898, pp. 240-243, pis. ii-vi.— Freer, 1898, pp. 256-260.— Niles, 

 1898a, pp. 27, 30, pi. ii, figs. 1-6.— Idem, 1898b, p. 45.— Pound, 1898, pp. 404- 

 407.— Bird, 1899, pp. 1, 5, figs. 1-6.— Lewis, 1899, pp. 3-5, figs. 1-2.— Mor- 

 gan, 1899, pp. 128, 129, 130, 134, pis. i, ii.— Luhe, 1900, p. 443.— Ward, 

 1900a, pp. 195, 201, 202, figs. 5-6.— Idem, 1900b, p. 437. [See also Neumann, 

 1897, p. 408, as syn. of Rhipicephalus annulatus. — Stiles & Hassall, 1901, 

 pp. 2, 3, as syn. of Boophilus annulatus.^ 



1897: Rhipicephalus annulatus (Say) Neumann, 1897, pp. 384, 407-414, 419, figs. 37-40, 

 in part.— Fuller, 1899, pp. 389, 391.— Ward, 1900a, pp. 201, 202.— Idem, 

 1900b, p. 437. [See also Stiles & Hassall, 1901, p. 2, as syn. of Boophilus 

 annulatus.'] 



1897: '^Ixodes identatus Gamgee" of Neumann, 1897, p. 408 (misprint for Ixodes 

 indentatus) . 



1898: Boophylis bovis' ^ (Riley) of Niles, 1898b, p. 25, for Boophilus bovis. 

 1901: Boophilus annulatus (Say) Stiles & Hassall, 1901, pp. 2, 3. — Salmon & Stiles, 

 1901, pp. 420-426, figs. 42-54, 59, 60, 62-64, 68, 151, 153a-?;, 154a. 



