10 
Rhlpicephalus 
(2) 9 (/ ticks showing various grades of maculation between 
R. ecinctus and R. maculatus, and taken from the same host during the 
same month by Dr Stannus (E. R. C. No. 194). 
(3) 4 (/s and 6$s, the (/s completely uniting R. ecinctus and R. 
maculatus and the $ s as in tube (1), collected from grass at Masongalini, 
British E. Africa by S. A. Neave, iv. 1911 (E. R. C. No. 263). 
(4) 12 cfs and 16 ^s, the J's mostly R. maculatus but some 
approaching R. ecinctus, and the $ s as before, also taken from grass by 
S. A. Neave at Mtito Andei, iii. 1911 (E. R. C. No. 264 c). 
From the consideration of these specimens and of the types, two 
things are abundantly clear; first that R. maculatus and R. ecinctus are 
identical, and secondly that the $ is as yet undescribed, wrong $s 
having been attributed to both the supposed species. 
Now in examining the cT types of R. maculatus and R. ecinctus it 
was impossible to find any difference except in the maculations of the 
scutum, and even in the type R. ecinctus the central white spot was 
distinctly visible. The most characteristic white blotches on a typical 
R. maculatus are a central spot, two rather linear splashes behind the 
pseudo-scutum, two latei’al spots rather behind the middle, and two 
others more posterior. 
In all our specimens the central spot persists, the post-pseudoscutal 
splashes being next in oi’der of persistency. The other spots are feebly 
present in some specimens and vividly in others. 
R. maculatus and R. ecinctus are therefore identical, and the $, 
hitherto undescribed, is diagnosed below. 
What, then, are the $s which have been attributed to these 
supposedly different forms ? 
Now the alleged $ of R. maculatus is undoubtedly R. pulchellus 
Gerstacker, 1873 $. In the original description it was described as 
like R. pulchellus with certain differences—mostly trifling, and the 
differences come well within the range of variation we have observed 
in the numerous specimens of undoubted R. pulchellus $s we have 
seen. 
The alleged R. ecinctus $ is a somewhat aberrant R. simus $. In 
the original description of R. ecinctus $ Neumann noted its similarity to 
R. simus. The capitula are precisely alike, the scutum only being rather 
unusual, but in view of the remarkable tendency to variation already 
alluded to in R. simus there can be little doubt as to the correctness of 
this conclusion, especially as R. simus was present in the tube from 
which R. ecinctus $ was described. 
