Gr. H. F. Nutt all 
335 
I. hexagonus, we consequently degraded cookei to a variety: I. 
hexagonus var. cookei. In European hexagonus ? of which we have 
examined hundreds there is a considerable variation in the shape and 
rugosity of the scutum and the size of the porose areas; on the other 
hand the d is so rare (we possess but three and there are none in the 
Museums of London, Paris, and Berlin) that we know nothing regarding 
its range of variability. Our experience of the European hexagonus ? 
would lead us to attach little value to the differences Bishopp makes 
out for his I. cookei var. rugosus <j>. This leaves a single d xipon which 
he bases the variety rugosus. It may well be that further experience 
will show that the males of I. hexagonus var. cookei show variation like 
the females. 
Ixodes fecialis var. aegrifossus Warburton and Nuttall 1909 
[Ticks, Part n. 250). Having recently examined a number of specimens 
(listed on p. 327) we have convinced ourselves that I. fecialis varies in 
the structure of the capitulum and scutum: the type and the supposed 
variety represent the extremes in variation. As intermediate forms 
occur we must condemn the variety. 
Judged from specimens mounted in balsam, the nymph closely 
resembles the ?; it remains to be described. The d and larva are still 
unknown. 
Ixodes nigricans Neumann 1908 [Ticks, Part n. 159). On further 
consideration we conclude that this species must fall into the long 
synonomy of I. ricinus (Linnaeus 1746); the slight structural differences 
we noted are merely individual and the very black colour is due to 
faulty preservation. 
Ixodes pratti Banks 1908 and Ixodes kingi Bishopp 1911. In 
Ticks, Part n. 174, we stated that we had not seen the d of I. pratti 
and cited Banks’ description thereof verbatim and enclosed in quotation 
marks. In a footnote we remarked “ The presence of large auriculae is 
indicated in Banks’ figure, which is very inaccurate. We have not 
included the d in our key, Banks’ description being insufficient.” On the 
other hand we described the purported ? of this species from a Cali¬ 
fornian specimen (N. 716, presented to us by the U.S. Dept, of Agriculture) 
which Banks had identified. As this specimen represented a new species 
and came to us labelled I. pratti by Banks himself, we saw no reason 
for not describing and figuring it as I. pratti ?. Our book appeared in 
May 1911. In the month following, F. C. Bishopp (23. vi. 1911, 
pp. 201-204) published an account of a purported new species, I. kingi, 
of which he described the d (hitherto unknown), and the $ which we had 
