2 
Bibliography of Pediculus and Phthwus 
merely by title in the bibliography. As far as I am aware, only one 
really important paper, that of Sikora (iv. 1916), has escaped examina¬ 
tion; this paper is cited as important by several German writers, but 
unfortunately it is at present unobtainable. 
Readers who may note omissions or errors are invited to help in 
their correction, for deficiencies are most likely to creep into a biblio¬ 
graphy ranging over a literature where titles are so frequently misleading. 
The bibliography enumerates 639 publications of which 404 have 
been consulted in the original, 81 in the form of abstracts or quotations 
by other authors, whilst 154 are cited by title only, being either inacces¬ 
sible or still to be consulted. The bibliography includes references 
contained in the (a) Index Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon- 
GeneraVs Office, U.S. Army [i. c.] first and second series; ( b ) Index 
Medicus [i. m.] first and second series up to the end of volume XIV, 
Dec. 1916, inclusive; (c) Concilium Bibliographicum [c. b.]. A number 
of publications that have proved inaccessible are given by Mjoberg [m.]; 
several of these having been found inaccurate, were checked by reference 
to C. W. Stiles and A. Hassall’s Index Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary 
Zoology [s.], which began to appear in 1902, is very complete, but has 
no subject index as yet. Where Mjoberg’s references were found want¬ 
ing they are described according to Stiles and Hassall, as indicated by 
[s.] following the title. Apart from the references obtained from 
original sources, and for which I am personally responsible, the accuracy 
of those references to which I have not had access has been checked, as 
far as possible, by the consultation of bibliographical works. Imperfect 
references which could not be verified are intentionally omitted, except 
in the case of some that Mjoberg (1910) may have given inaccurately 
and which could not be checked. A number of incomplete references to 
older writers are given by Schjodte (1864). With a few notable excep¬ 
tions (Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam, etc.) reference to the really 
old literature has been omitted. Readers interested in tracing the 
frequently doubtful records of lice in the writings of classical authors or 
old writers on medicine, are referred to the papers of Landois (1864 b, 
1865 b) and Knott (1905) which contain many citations. Husemann 
(1867) records “ phthiriasis ” from the Middle Ages. Kiichenmeister 
(1857) discusses the supposed references to lice in the Bible. Fischer 
(1915) gives citations from writers of the 16th century and onwards. 
Piaget (1880) furnishes a large number of useless references to authors 
who merely mention Pediculus ; such references might be multiplied 
indefinitely. 
