208 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 95 
International Code. We now find that Heptagoniodes Carriker, 1936, 
is actually the new name for Lepidophorus Taschenberg, 1882, it auto- 
matically replacing Lepidophorus since the two generic concepts and 
names are isogenotypic through synonymy. ‘Therefore we have the 
following facts: | 
Kelleggia Carriker, 1908. Type, Kelloggia brevipes Carriker. Monobasic. The 
type designation of Carriker, 1936, is invalid because the species designated 
was not originally included in the genus. : 
Lepidophorus Taschenberg, 1882. No type designated. Two species included, the 
second not congenerie with the first. 
Ornicholaz Carriker, 1903. Type, Ornicholaxv robustus Carriker. Monobasic. 
Heptagoniodes Carriker, 1986. Typé, Heptagoniodes mirabilis Carriker. Hepta- 
goniodes mirabilis Carriker=Goniocotes agonus Nitzsch. 
Kelloggia now stands in the clear, with its monobasic type; also 
Ornicholax, with type designated by the author. Since no type was 
designated for Lepidophorus, the first species under it should be so 
designated, viz: Goniocotes agonus Nitzsch. Therefore we have the 
following: 
Kelloggia Carriker. . Genotype: K. brevipes Carriker. 
Ornicholag Carriker. Genotype: O. robustus (= O. alienus robustus Carriker.) 
Heptagoniodes Carriker. Genotype: Goniecotes agonus Nitzsch (through syn- 
onymy). Syn. Lepidophorus Taschenberg. Genotype: Goniocotes agonus 
Nitzsch. 
HEPTAGONIODES AGONUS (Nitzsch) 
Goniocotes agonus NitzscH, in Giebel, Zeitschr. ftir ges. Naturw., vol. 28, p. 387, 
1866. (Host: Tinamus tao.) 
Lepidophorus agonus (Nitzsch) TASCHENBERG, Die Mallophagen, p. 61, pl. 1, fig. 6 
(female), 1882. 
Kelloggia agona (Nitzsch) CARRIKER, Lice of the tinamous, p. 175, 1936. 
Heptagoniodes mirabilis CARRIKER, Lice of the tinamous, p. 167, pl. 30, figs. 3, 3a 
(male), 1986. (Host: Tinamus t. tao.) 
It is now a well-established fact that Goniocotes agonus Nitzsch, 
described from a single female, is the female of Heptagoniodes mira- 
bilis Carriker. Dr. Hopkins (1940, p. 420) has presented a very clear 
and perfectly logical exposition of the case, with which I am thor- 
oughly in accord, while the taking of both sexes of this genus by me 
in 1937 had already convinced me of this fact. The above-mentioned 
specimens were taken on Zinamus tao weddelli, and the females re- 
semble rather closely Taschenberg’s figure of Goniocotes agonus, but 
the males are different from Heptagoniodes mirabilis Carriker, taken 
on Tinamus t. tao. The taking of both sexes of Heptagoniodes to- 
gether on the same individual host (a subspecies of 7’. tao) leaves no 
further room for argument concerning the true relationship between 
Goniocotes agonus Nitzsch and Heptagoniodes mirabilis Carriker. 
8T am greatly indebted to Dr. E. A. Chapin, of the U. S. National Museum, for his 
assistance in untangling the synonymy of the four genera here discussed. 
