<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dalgleish, Robert Campbell</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palma, Ricardo Luis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Price, Roger DeForrest</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Smith, Vincent Stuart</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fossil lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera) reconsidered</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Systematic Entomology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.phthiraptera.org/Publications/46326.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">648-651</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Five papers describing fossils considered to be Phthiraptera (lice) by their authors are reviewed. We place the specimens described in three papers in the Acari (mites) and regard them as probably not fossils. A fourth paper describes what appears to be a fossil insect. However, we do not consider it to be a louse. The fifth paper describes a more recent fossil that differs little from extant lice.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">46326</style></accession-num><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal</style></notes></record></records></xml>