— I 21 
tains it as a variety. We hâve examinée! hundreds of specimens 
of A. per siens and A. miniatus, and cannot distinguish them 
specifically or otherwise. The geographieal distribution of the 
species is doubtless dépendent upon the distribution of its chief 
host, the domestic fowl. A parallel instance may be found in 
Rhipicephalus sanguineus which lias been spread practically 
throughout the world together with the domestic dog. This spe¬ 
cies, likewise, bears numerous names in the literature. Both the 
spécifie and varietal name miniatus should be suppressed, unless 
some constant différence can be cletected. Nothing but confusion 
can resuit from the use of a multiplicity of useless names applied 
to a single species. 
II) Hyalomma aegyptium is stated to transmit equine piro- 
plasmosis. May I ask on what evidence? No scientific evidence 
exists, to my knowledge, that this species of tick transmits dis- 
ease. Similarly, I should like to be referred to the authorities 
who hâve shown that Haemaphysalis Icporis-palustris Packard 
{an American species !) is the <c agent de la babésiose des liè¬ 
vres » ? (where?). I am inclined to think that these are gratuitous 
assLimptions on the part of the authors. It is désirable to check 
such statements at their birth, for, though they be wrong, they 
are often accepted by other authors and the error is carried on 
from paper to paper ad nauseam witness the case of Dermacen- 
tor reticulatus and Ixodes ricinus which are definitely put down 
as carriers of Piroplasma canis (vide Blanchard, 1909, l’Insecte 
et l’Infection, pp. 144 and 94, respectively), although this has 
never been proved. (At présent the only known carriers P. canis 
are Haemaphysalis leachi and Rhipicephalus sanguineus ). 
III) Ixodes ricinus (Linnaeus, 1746-48). The authors refer to 
this species as I. reduvius. Surely it is time to drop the latter 
name for the reasons stated by Neumann (1901, p. 281), and cited 
by us in the Synonymy of the species in Ticks II. (1911), p. 143. 
IV) « Ixodes triangulipes Birula », cited by the authors, does 
not exist. The authors doubtless mean to refer to Ixodes triangu- 
liceps Birula, 1895, which we regard as a doubtful species (vide 
Ticks II, p. 293) although it may be identical with I. tenuirostris 
Nn., 1901. Birula’s species was founded on a single female ; the 
specimen is mounted and in his collection at St. Petersburg. 
V) « Ixodes spinocoxalis Neum. » is meant for /. spinicoxalis 
Nn., 1899. The types of this species are from Sumatra (Brit. 
