‘329 
THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION, SYNONYMY AND 
ICONOGRAPHY OF PEDICULUS HUMAN US AND 
PHTH I BUS PUBIS. 
By GEORGE H. F. NUTTALL, F.R.S. 
(From the Quick Laboratory , University of Cambridge.) 
CONTENTS. 
PAGE 
I. The Systematic position of the Anoplura.329 
II. The Order Anoplura Leach and its Sub-orders, etc., defined . 332 
III. Pcdiculus humanus Linn., its Synonymy and Iconography . 334 
IV. Phthirus •pubis (Linn.), its Synonymy and Iconography . . 345 
I. 
The lice which infest man belong to the order Anoplura Leach 1817, con¬ 
taining two sub-orders, (i) Siphunculata Meinert 1891 and (ii) Mallophaga 
Nitzsch 1818. The family Pediculidae Leach is included in the Siphunculata 1 . 
Owing to the confusion which still persists in the literature regarding the 
nomenclature and systematic position of the two sub-orders of Anoplura, it 
appears expedient to review the evidence upon which the statement contained 
in the preceding paragraph is based. 
Linnaeus (1758, ed. x) classified “ insects " chiefly in accordance with their 
wing structure. He divided them into seven orders, the last of which, the 
Aptera, represented a miscellaneous assemblage corresponding to what we 
know to-day as Apterygogenea + Suctoria + Mallophaga + Siphunculata 
+ Isoptera + Corrodentia pp. + Arachnoidea + Crustacea + Myriopoda 
+ Diptera pp. 
Fabricius (1775, S. Ent.), contrary to Linnaeus, classed “insects 5 ’ chiefly 
according to the structure of the mouthparts. He divided them into eight 
“classes,' 5 the last, named the Antliata, comprising what we know as Di¬ 
ptera + Siphunculata + Mallophaga + Arachnoidea pp. + Crustacea pp. 
De Geer (1778, Mem. vii) took both the mouthparts and wing structure 
into account. He failed to give his groups names; these were supplied subse¬ 
quently by Retzius (1783) as hereinafter indicated. The insects were divided 
1 Anoplura ( &vott\os , unarmed, + ovpa, tail). 
Siphunculata (siphunculus, a little tube, referring to the mouthparts). 
Mallophaga (p.a\\6 s, fleece + (pa-ydv , to eat). 
