L. Harrison 
3 
a valid species under all three genera. Even one of Kellogg’s own 
species, first described as Nirmus, but subsequently, on the discovery 
of the male, as Lipeurus faralloni, appears under both genera. Certain 
omissions have been due to a failure to examine the whole even of the 
recent literature of the group. Papers by Neumann, Piaget, and 
Le Souef describing new species have been ignored, although the species 
described were duly catalogued in the Zoological Record. Certain 
descriptions by a very distinguished American entomologist, Packard, 
have been enveloped in a wholly needless mystery. In his “List of 
Biting Lice (Mallophaga) taken from Birds and Mammals of North 
America” (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., xxn.), Kellogg, on p. 48, quotes 
Docophorus syrnii Packard from Gurlt, with the statement that “neither 
Osborn nor I have been able to find the original record for this species.” 
On p. 67 of the same work we read: 
“Goniodes mephitidis Packard, Kept. U.S. Geol. and. Geog. Survey, 
1872, p. 732. Taken from a skunk, Mephitis, but probably a straggler 
from some gallinaceous bird which was the prey of the animal.” 
This entry gives a perfectly correct reference to the paper in which 
Docophorus syrnii was described, and which neither Kellogg nor Osborn 
was able to find. That Kellogg had not referred to it is perfectly 
obvious from the qualifying remark quoted above, for Packard gives 
a good figure of his Goniodes mephitidis which shows quite clearly that 
it is identical with the insect described more than twenty years later 
by Osborn as Trichodectes mephitidis, and is not “a straggler from some 
gallinaceous bird.” Incidentally, Packard’s species were listed in the 
Zoological Record under a correct reference; and his descriptions and • 
figures were also reprinted in the American Naturalist, vin. 
But these minor matters do not affect the general value of Professor 
Kellogg’s list, which I have used myself to great advantage, and errors 
are inevitable in any large compilation. 
Another factor that has been largely responsible for the present 
publication has been the activity of a considerable number of workers now 
writing on Mallophaga, and the beginnings that have been made by these 
workers in breaking up the larger genera. This process of subdivision 
will assuredly go on rapidly, and it seems to me that the present is the 
best time to decide upon the correct names of the known species, while 
they are still included in large genera. At a later stage, when species 
have passed into smaller generic divisions, much greater difficulty will 
be experienced in clearing up the nomenclature. 
Finally, I have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by a 
visit to England to examine personally the whole literature of Mallophaga, 
1—2 
