156 
J. R. AUDY 
multisetose; mastitarsala III sometimes present; apparently confined to birds. Nymphs (known for 4 
species) with sensillary area striated and entire not raised between sensillary bases to form longitudinal 
ridges; sensillary area reniform, hilus anterior; sensillae variable, lanceolate or almost filiform; eyes absent; 
opisthosomal setae of two types, long and short. 
Remarks. — There is a great range of variation in this genus, in such characters as the shape 
of scutum and sensilla, and the setation of the palps, galea, scuta, coxae, and body. As Wharton 
& Hardcastle point out, the three species carveri , namrui , and riversi are so distinctive that 
“ each could conceivably be made the type of a monotypic genus... on morphological grounds”. 
One of the four nymphs known is that of the distinctive carveri. The extraordinary association 
of the submerged scutum with exclusive parasitisation of birds is striking, but we may note that 
E. rectangulare from a rat has the scutum likewise partly submerged. The scutal submergence 
might be one of those perplexing examples of convergence which seem to occur in the chiggers — 
e.g. the very close similarity between T. munda and E. indica with occur together on house-rats 
in Malaya. A group which parasitises birds is exposed in both larval and post-larval stages to 
a particularly interesting complex of environments and the intensive study of this genus will 
undoubtedly be as fascinating as it will be instructive. An important question is whether 
this genus is regularly nest-infesting, i.e. whether the post-larval stages infest the nests, as 
appears generally to be the case with E. indica for example. 
Old World species. — Africa: mirafra. India & Malaysia: gallinarum N, salmi , thomasi. Pacific 
area : americana solomonis N ?, atollensis, backhousei, bougainvillensis, carveri N, dubia, egretta, gallinarum 
iV, monticola N ?, namrui , pauensis, posekanyi , retrocincta , riversi , strongi, yeomansi\ asakawai , okumurai. 
Genus Mackiena Traub & Evans, 1950 
Type. — Mackiena empodiformis Traub & Evans 1950:126, J. Wash. Med. Sci. 3 40, 126-219, from a 
bird, North Burma. 
Diagnosis. — With the characters of Neoschongastia but with empodium expanded to sucker-like or 
pad-like terminal discs. 
Remarks. — This genus is probably best thought of provisionally as a subgenus of 
Neoschongastia. There is no reason to suppose that the modified empodium alone relates this 
species to Riedlinia. 
Genus Guntherana Womersley & Heaslip, 1943 
Type. — Neoschongastia kallipygos Gunther, 1939:183, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. , 64, 73-96 (synonyms 
N. callipygea Gun., 1939, N. bipygalis Gun., 1939, G. parana Worn., 1944). From rats and marsupial rats. 
New Guinea. 
Diagnosis. — Trombiculines of the S chong astia generic group whose larvae have paired posterior dorsal 
plates bearing pairs of setae on each side (the plates may appear fused in unengorged larvae) ; body often 
slightly constricted medially; eyes present; without mastitarsala III. The only known larvae (of the type) 
hatch from eggs cemented to the fur of the hosts. Nymphs & Adults similar to those of Euschongastia 
but with sensillary area relatively very wide (ASL/ SB = about 1.1); shallow posterior angle; sensillae 
unexpanded with barbs or ciliations along entire length of shaft; without eyes; precoxal plates of coxa I 
well defined, separated (no true sternum) ; dorsal setae slender, tapering, ciliated. 
Remarks. — There is some difference of opinion on the correct name for the type, which 
was described as N. kallipygos. Gunther’s amendment to N. bipygalis ( nom nov ., Gunther, 
1939, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. , 64, 471-473) is not acceptable as it was made for no valid reason, 
as Gunther himself accepts in his recent check-list. 
Gunther (1952 :i) has raised a new family, Guntheraninae, to accommodate this genus. He 
does this on the strength of the accessory dorsal plates, and in particular on the extraordinary 
habit recorded by Gunther of the attachment of eggs of G. kallipygos to the fur of the host 
(as Womersley, 1952:246 points out, this requires a good deal of further investigation). The 
present writer is not sure that grounds yet exist for considering the differences to be subfamilial 
STUD. INST. MED. RES. 
