THOMPSON YATES AND JOHNSTON LABORATORIES REPORT 
Second atitennal segment with several long bristles on the apical projection. 
Non-segmented side of club of antenna with a row of usually three hairs accom- 
panied by one minute hair further frontad. 
Mesosternite produced posteriorly into a small obtuse lobe. No hair on either 
the episternum or the sternum of the metathorax ; epimerum vertical, very much 
higher than long. 
Abdominal segments not, or very little, separate in swollen $ Tergites of 
both sexes with at least one bristle, which is subdorsal, seventh tergite with an apical 
bristle. Sensory plate of ninth abdominal tergite with thirteen or fourteen grooves 
on each side. Last stigma hairy. Posterior (= meral) portion of hind coxa gradually 
becoming narrower apicallv ; apex of hind coxa anteriorly produced downwards into 
a prominent truncate lobe ; a patch of numerous short spine-like bristles on inner 
side of hind coxa. Trochanter and femur of hind leg simple ; a pair of hairs at the 
subbasal sinus of the hind femur. Curved apical bristle of femora rather stout. 
Eighth abdominal tergite with a short manubrium. Manubrium of clasper 
longitudinal in direction ; ninth tergite wider dorsally than above manubrium ; clasper 
not separate from dorsal portion of segment by a suture ; three free processes on 
clasper, the two lower ones forming a pair of pincers. Ninth sternite ' boomerang '- 
shaped, not or only a little projecting beyond the eighth segment. 
Stylet present. Abdominal sternites not divided in the mesial line. 
Though Olliff's description, if taken verbally, does not apply to any species of 
Siphonaptera known to us, we have no doubt that the species called by him ambulans, 
I.e., belongs into the present genus of Sarcopsyllidae. The description gives one the 
impression of being incorrect. The antenna is stated to be four-jointed ; the 
mandible is said to be serrate only in the apical half, the tibiae are described as having 
' rather large spines on the external margin,' etc. Such statements are certainly not 
correct, and we may, therefore, consider it also an error of observation that the 
labial palpus is described as three-jointed. On the other hand, Oi.lifk mentions some 
important points which appear to us to be of more weight than the above statements 
quoted from the description. The specimens of Echidnophaga ambulans — Olliff had 
evidently only $ though he does not mention to which sex his specimens belonged 
— were so firmly attached to the host by the rostrum as to render their removal a 
matter of considerable difficulty. They did not appear to possess the power of 
jumping. Their body is said to be almost destitute of bristles except at the anus, 
and the claws of the tarsi to be simple. Taking now further into consideration that 
some of the species of the present genus are common parasites in Australia on various 
hosts, including Echidna bystrix, we are fairly bound to conclude that Echidnophaga 
ambulans is congeneric with Westwood's Sarcopsyllus gallinaceus ; unfortunately 
Echidnophaga is the first generic term for this genus, Westwood's Sarcopsyllus being a 
misspelling for Sarcopsvlla proposed more than thirty years earlier for the South 
