26 The Genera and Species of Mallophaga 
use it in the restricted form suggested by Waterston (1915, p. 12), I 
can see no advantage in adopting it at present. The second grades so 
completely into the ordinary circumfasciate Lipeurus that there is no 
justification for granting it generic rank. The type of the third is a 
petrel Lipeurus, close to L. gurlti. The name may have to be employed 
later, but I reject it for the present. 
I have been obliged to introduce two new names. From Oncophorus 
Piaget, which is invalidated by Oncophorus Rudow, all the species, 
save two, have been removed to Rallicola, Parricola and Strigiphilus. 
For these two, 0. cephalotes Nitzsch and 0. latifrons Piaget, I propose 
a new name, Par oncophorus, with the former species as type. I have 
also removed the circumfasciate gallinaceous Lipeuri, which unfortu¬ 
nately include the type of the genus (Johnston and Harrison, 1911, 
p. 326), into the Goniodinae, and it becomes necessary to propose a 
new name for the balance of the genus. For this I propose Esthiopterum, 
with E. ( Lipeurus) ebraeum Burmeister as type. 
The names used for many of the genera will probably appear strange 
to a number of systematic workers. Justification for them will be found 
in the List of Generic Names, and in the papers of Neumann (1906) 
and Johnston and myself (1911). The attempt of Enderlein (1909, 
p. 447) to introduce the genus Ricinus Degeer as an equivalent for 
Nirmus Nitzsch requires to be dealt with. Neumann (1906) has 
designated as type of Ricinus Degeer the first species described by the 
latter, R. fringillae, which is the Physostomum irascens of Nitzsch, and 
has shown that Physostomum must give place to Ricinus. He admits 
that Nirmus Hermann is a synonym of Ricinus Degeer, points out that 
Nirmus Nitzsch is invalid, and proposes a new name Degeeriella. With 
this procedure I am entirely in agreement. But Enderlein maintains 
that Nirmus Nitzsch is equivalent to Nirmus Hermann, a position 
wholly untenable, and bolsters up his case with a travesty of fact which 
surpasses any I have met before, even in the systematics of Mallophaga. 
He states that the third species, Ricinus cornicis, of Degeer is identical 
with Pediculus corvi-coracis L. (it will be noted that he does not dis¬ 
tinguish the name of the species, which is corvi, from that of the host) 
and Nirmus varius Nitzsch, in Giebel, and that for this reason the 
Linnaean name must stand as the type of Ricinus, with the other two 
as synonyms. But P. corvi L. is founded on Redi’s figure of Pulex corvi, 
which Nitzsch himself includes as a synonym of his Docophorus atratus; 
and R. cornicis Degeer is, upon his own quite recognisable figure, and 
upon the admission of Giebel, the same as Menopon mesoleucum Nitzsch. 
Consequently Enderlein arrives at the portentous conclusion that the 
