Gr. H. F. Nutt all 
331 
Enderlein placed the Siphunculata under Rhynchota as a sub-order, degrading 
Siphunculata Meinert (1891), Pseudorhynchota Cholodkowsky (1903) and 
Lipognatlia Borner (1904) to synonyms of “Anoplura” Leach. Enderlein 
would therefore separate Siphunculata and Mallophaga widely, this being 
contrary to the views of other authors both before and after his publication 
appeared. 
Latreille (1796), Leach (1817) and Denny (1842) all agreed in placing 
Siphunculata and Mallophaga close together in the system, a proceeding that 
has been amply justified by subsequent research. 
Melnikow (1869, pp. 153-186) found the Siphunculata and Mallophaga very 
similar in their embryology. Meinert (1891, pp. 58-83) found that the Pedi- 
culina differ from Rhynchota and Mallophaga; he therefore founded a new 
order, Siphunculata, to include sucking lice, these being characterized by the 
absence of external mouthparts like those of other insects. Meinert therefore 
took up an intermediate position but did not support Enderlein. Cholodkow¬ 
sky (1903, pp. 120-125) agrees fully with Melnikow, and brings Pediculidae 
and Mallophaga together in a new order Pseudorhynchota, a thankless 
proceeding since this name necessarily falls into synonymy. Handlirsch 
(1903, p. 730) also reached the independent conclusion that Pediculidae and 
Mallophaga are closely allied, he places Corrodentia, Mallophaga (Nitzsch) 
Handl., and Siphunculata Meinert in three successive orders in the sub-class 
Blattaeformia (see also Handlirsch (1906-8), Handb. p. 1290), regarding 
the Siphunculata (which include Pediculidae) as Mallophaga that have adapted 
themselves to blood-sucking. Handlirsch (1905, pp. 664-670) disagrees entirely 
with Enderlein; to Handlirsch the mouthparts of Pediculidae appear more 
primitive than those of Hemiptera, they seem to be directly derived from a 
chewing type, and in searching for such a type he always came back to Mallo¬ 
phaga; Enderlein’s own observations actually confirm Handlirsch in his view 
that Pediculidae are derived from Mallophaga. 
Borner (1904, p. 527) does not agree with Cholodkowsky in associating 
Pediculidae and Mallophaga together under Pseudorhynchota, and degrades 
the latter to a synonym of Siphunculata Meinert; Borner, because of the 
difference in the mouthparts, places Mallophaga in a sub-section of the Acer- 
caria and the Siphunculata in the new sub-section Lipognatha Borner (1904). 
Fulmek (1907), Mjoberg (1910) and Harrison (1915) likewise agree that the 
Siphunculata and Mallophaga are closely allied. Gross (1906, p. 347) rightly 
remarks that altogether too much attention has been rivetted upon mouth¬ 
parts and their homologies to the exclusion of everything else; he draws 
attention to the very close resemblance he found in the structure of the ovaries 
in two species of Pediculidae and two species of Mallophaga when compared 
in this respect. Of the two super-families of Mallophaga, the Ischnocera and 
Amblycera, Harrison (1916, pp. 218-221) finds that the Ischnocera are 
distinctly more affiliated to the Siphunculata, as indicated by the structure 
of the antennae, legs, thorax, the digestive and tracheal systems, the position 
