384 
Neui 21allop]tag a 
present classification of the Ischnocera ; which is so largely based upon 
the comparative length and breadth of species, and upon sexual dimor¬ 
phism of the antennae. Kellogg (1896) has divided the Ischnocera 
into two famihes, Trichodectidae and Philopteridae. Mjoberg (1910) 
has further divided the Philopteridae into four families, Lipeuridae, 
Eurymetopidae, Gouiodidae, and Docophoridae. It will be noted that 
Kellogg’s name Philopteridae has been dropped, unless we assume that 
Mjoberg intended it to contain the remaining Ischnoceran genera, 
with which he has not dealt. These are Nesiotinus Kellogg, Ornicholax 
Carriker, AMdoproctus Piaget, Giehelia Kellogg, Bothriometopus Tas- 
chenberg, Philoceanus Kellogg, Trabeculus Endow, Oncophorns Piaget = 
Rallicola Johnston and Harrison, and Kelloggia Carriker. Neumann 
has, however, pointed out (1906, p. 58) that Pliilopterus must replace 
Docophorus, so that Kellogg’s name must stand for the family including 
Philopterus and Degeeriella. It may be noted iii passing that Mjoberg’s 
name Eurymetopidae must be replaced by Docophoroididae; as Doco- 
p)horoides Giglioli (1864) has priority over Eurymetopus Taschenberg 
(1882), and is quite validly diagnosed, despite Neumann’s assertion 
(1912, p. 196) to the contrary. Of these genera, not dealt vath by 
Mjoberg, Ornicholax and Kelloggia fall into the Goniodidae; Nesiotinus, 
which seems to be an immature form, must, if correctly described, form 
the type genus of a new family Nesiotinidae, with the characters of the 
genus; Giehelia, Philoceanus, and Trabeculus find place in Waterston’s 
(1914, p. 290) family Giebeliidae; Rallicola must be included tentatively 
in the Philopteridae; while AMdoproctus and Bothriometopus would, 
according to the present family diagnoses, fall respectively into the 
Philopteridae and Lipeuridae. But, as I shall show later, these two 
genera are closely related, so that a classification which separates them 
is manifestly absurd. 
As a matter of fact, my present investigations, so far as they have 
gone, have confirmed me in the opinion that the genera themselves need 
a drastic revision before the family groupings can be satisfactorily 
arranged. And for this purpose a variety of characters must be called 
into use, which have hitherto been ignored. I hope, at a future date, 
to be in a position to undertake this revision. In the meantime, no 
particular purpose will be served by discussing the present family 
divisions. But the difficulty that I have mentioned above arises also 
in the case of the genus Psittaconirmus, which I have not placed in a 
family, as the only family open to receive it is the Lipeuridae, with which 
I can easily conAunce myself that it has no immediate affinity. 
