84 
The Non-Comhed Eyed Siphonapterci 
stigma downwards, 1 or 2 more large bristles being placed further 
ventrally. The ventral and apical edges also bear an irregular row 
of long and short bristles as shown in the figure. The stylet is 
cylindrical. 
Length. £ T4 mm., $ 2 - 2 mm. 
We have both sexes from Maripa, Caura River, Orinoco, off 
Prochimys spec., May 1903, collected by S. M. Klages. 
6. Genus: Parapsyllus Enderl. (1903). 
Parapsyllus Enderlein (1903, p. 260, name-type: longicornis Enderl.)] Baker (1905 a, 
p. 131). 
$. Nearest to Rhopalopsyllus, from which it differs especially in 
the antenna. 
Head. The genal process short, obtuse, bearing a number of 
bristles (PI, II, fig. 12). The antennal groove large, open behind, 
extending on to the prosternite. The club of the antenna long, 
resembling that of Geratophyllus Curt., being acuminate in the </, 
with the last segment ovate and the segmental incisions distinct all 
round the club. The proximal segments of the club symmetrical, not 
being semi-detached and not sloping backwards as in Rhopalopsyllus. 
The short hairs situated at the upper edge of the antennal groove 
thinner than in Rhopalopsyllus, being in the $ few in number and 
placed widely apart. The labial palpus has 4 or 5 segments. 
Thorax. The thoracical tergites bear two rows of bristles, there 
being usually some additional bristles on the meso- and metanotum. 
The metanotum has no apical spines. The episternum of the meta- 
thorax is smaller than in Rhopalopsyllus. 
Legs. No comb of spines on the hindcoxa. 
Abdomen. The stigmata are smaller than in Rhopalopsyllus. 
Modified segments. These are of the same type as in Rhopalo¬ 
psyllus ; but in one species ( simonsi) the clasper bears an additional 
process. 
The species, as far as they are known, are so different from each 
other that they possibly represent four genera. These species are, 
however, more closely allied to one another than to the other non- 
combed eyed Pulicidae and, moreover, have some conspicuous characters 
in common, that we consider it unnecessary to propose several new 
genera for their reception. They will, therefore, be placed under 
Enderlein’s generic term, till the discovery of a larger number of 
species renders it necessary to divide the genus. 
