94 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 95 
Leyden Museum. Carriker (1936, p. 72, pl. 3, fig. 2) redescribes what 
he took to be the same form from Crypturellus obsoletus pumensis 
from Peru and Bolivia, though noting that Piaget’s type was probably 
from the Brazilian form of the host (C. 0. obsoletus) and might prove 
slightly different; he placed the species in his new genus Pseudoli- 
peurus. Clay (1987, p. 183) compared Piaget’s type with Carriker’s 
figure and found that in the type the hyaline frontal margin is bilobed, 
whereas Carriker’s figure shows it entire. She was unable to decide 
whether the difference should be considered subspecific owing to the 
absence of adequate material. 
“Recently I received from Prof. Plaumann a collection of Mal- 
lophaga taken on Crypturellus o. obsoletus (Temminck) in south 
Brazil, which included a good series of Pseudolipeurus longipes 
(Piaget). All these specimens have the frontal margin bilobed as 
in Piaget’s type and Miss Clay kindly compared one of the males with 
Piaget’s type and found it to be identical. Meanwhile Mr. Carriker 
has most kindly sent me two males and two females comprising the 
whole of the material from which he redescribed the species, except 
the single male from Calabatea, Bolivia, which is no longer in his 
possession. In all these specimens the hyaline frontal margin is prac- 
‘ tically straight, but in all of them it has a somewhat folded and col- 
lapsed appearance, and so I am unable to satisfy myself that the 
apparent absence of the two lobes is genuine. But there are other 
differences between the two forms, some of which appear to be con- 
stant, which convince me that they are subspecifically distinct. 
_ “The most important difference is in the form of the male genitalia: 
The chitinous bars which strengthen the basal plate converge distally 
more strongly than in Piaget’s form and the paramers are decidedly 
stouter and more strongly bent than in the material from C. 0. pun- 
ensis, but the most striking difference is that the endomeral plate 
(of ihe same type in both forms) is proportionally very much shorter 
in the material from C. 0. punensis than in true longipes,; in the 
former it is little more than twice as long as broad and occupies 
slightly more than half (seven-thirteenths) of the longitudinal space 
between the paramers, whereas in true /ongipes it is rather more than 
three times as long as broad and occupies three-quarters (nine- 
thirteenths) of this space. Carriker has drawn attention (1936, 
p- #2) to the fact that in his form the head is decidedly narrower in 
the male than in the female, and that the female is much longer than 
the male. Neither of these alisemretame ! is true of longipes, in which 
the sexes are almost exactly the same size and the cervical index is 
1.83 in both sexes. The two pairs from C. 0. punensis are by no 
means uniform in either of these respects, and I am not convinced 
that we are not dealing with three subspecies instead of two, but in 
