#4
Female, could be
Xenopsylla cheopis.
Receptaculum seminis is not visible, so the determination is not accurate.
I has one
antepigidial bristle, which is not present in
Pulex irritans.
Best wishes, Tomi
#5
Thanks for your input Tomi. It's good to question identifications - keeps us all on our toes! However, comparing Figures 40 and 48 in Whitaker's RES Handbook, it seems to me that on head chaetotaxy alone, Lorin's specimen cannot be
Xenopsylla. The apparent antesensilial (antepygidial) seta is at a rather strange angle, and I wonder whether it is a displaced seta from elsewhere on the specimen? So I'll stick with
Pulex for now.

#6
A parasitologist, whom I sent this photo, also had it determined as
P.i. He was not sure about the sex though