336 
Pediculus and Phthirus 
Pediculus cervicalis Stephens 1829, p. 329, sp. 9319: “Head-louse.” This author 
gives an inaccessible reference to Samouelle (see bibliogr.) and records “Pe. 
vestimenti de Geer (teste Nitzsch)” as a synonym. 
1842. Pediculus capitis Denny 1842, p. 13, PI. XXVI, fig. 2. 
Pediculus vestimenti Denny 1842, p. 16, PI. XXVI, fig. 1. 
1874. Pediculus capitis Giebel 1874, p. 30, PI. I, fig. 1-2. 
Pediculus vestimenti Giebel 1874, p. 27, PI. I, fig. 5. 
1880. Pediculus capitis Piaget 1880, p. 619, PI. L, fig. 2. 
Pediculus vestimenti Piaget 1880, p. 623, PI. L, fig. 3. 
Pediculus consobrinus Piaget 1880, p. 626, PI. LI, fig. 4 ( = P. h. race capitis). Prom 
Ateles paniscus (pentadactylus). Given as a valid species by Dalla Torre (1908, p. 8). 
Piaget himself was more cautious, for he put “n.sp. (?)” after the name. He 
founded the supposed new species on the size of the head, form of thorax, and 
finer details, the head being “quite rounded in front,” although otherwise it was 
much like capitis. An examination of Piaget’s figures and text proves that he 
was merely dealing with a short and broad strain of capitis. Neumann (1910, 
p. 410) also refers Piaget’s doubtful species to capitis. 
1908. “ Pediculus capitis de Geer” in Dalla Torre (1908, p. 8), includes “P. humanus 
Csiki 1904, Rovart Lapok, ii. 180,” as a synonym. 
“Pediculus corporis de Geer” of many authors has no status. It is given as a valid 
name by Dalla Torre (1908, p. 8); Castellani and Chalmers (1913, p. 631), etc. 
1910. Pediculus affinis Mjoberg 1910, pp. 169, 258, PI. V, fig. 8 (photo.) and text-figs. 85, 
151 ($, ? shrivelled); specimens taken from Ateles sp. I agree with Cummings 
(in. 1916, p. 255) that there is nothing in Mjoberg’s description or figures to in¬ 
dicate that he was dealing with other than P. h. race capitis. I have moreover 
examined typical dark specimens of capitis ($ and larvae), at the British Museum, 
that had been taken from Ateles paniscus at the Zoological Soc. Gardens, London, 
these being the same specimens referred to by Cummings ( loc. cit.) as corresponding 
to “affinis.” Cummings dismisses “ affinis ” as “probably a straggler from human 
beings, establishing itself on Ateles.” It is possible, however, that Cebidae 
harbour capitis- like lice naturally. These lice are small, have the 5th spiracle¬ 
bearing abdominal segment more prominent than is usual in capitis ( ? and 
larva), whilst the <$ has the thumb of the first tarsus reduced. I would add the 
following records of this strain of capitis from further hosts. N. 301, $ and 
larvae from Cebus hypoleucus and N. 299, 3<$ and larvae from Ateles geoffroyi, 
gifts of Hon. N. C. Rothschild; $ and larvae and part of $ from Ateles ater, in 
Denny’s collection at Oxford. It remains to be determined if Cebidae in a wild 
state harbour such lice. 
1910. Pediculus schaffi Fahrenholz 1910, p. 57, PI. Ill, figs. 2, 6 and text-fig. 1 (eggs), 
specimens taken from a recently imported Simia troglodytes (chimpanzee) at 
the Zoological Gardens, Hanover. The heavily infested animal had been treated 
for lice of which a few $$ and larvae were received for examination. Judging 
from the author’s figures and measurements he must have indeed examined very 
few specimens. The only indications he gives that may point to a .new species 
are, (a) the presence of a blunt spur basally on coxa II in $ and larva, ( b) the very 
prominent lateral protrusion of the last abdominal segments in a $, (c) the more 
tapering basal end of the egg; his further “specific” characters maybe dismissed 
as without significance. Fahrenholz concludes that the larva moults soon after 
hatching because in a mounted specimen of a larva, which he assumes had just 
issued from the egg, a well chitinized 2nd stage larva is seen within the 1st larval 
