482 W. WILLIAMSON AND C. D. SOAR ON BRITISH HYDRACARINA : 



Das Mannchen ist nicht halb so gross als das Weibchen, hat 

 mehr zusammengefiossene Riickenflecken und stets einen rost- 

 braunen Mittelfleck des Vorderleibs ; die Unterseite ist dunkler 

 griin iiberlaufen und der durchscheinende Mittelfleck auf der 

 Brust rbthlich sichtbar. Bruststiick, Taster und Beine sind 

 heller und weniger stammig. Am Hinterrande beiderseits ein 

 Eindruck. 



Variirt ins blassfarbige ; bei sehr hellfarbigen Exemplaren 

 fehlen die hintern Flecken und alsdann erscheint das hintere 

 Drittel des Kbrpers durchsichtig weisslich. 



Im Schwarzbach bei Zweibriicken in Rheinbayern sehr 

 gemein. 



It will be seen at once that Koch makes much of colour and 

 of the shape of the colour patches, and as these, as Koch himself 

 admits, are variable, dependence placed on them for identification 

 is apt to lead to confusion. Nor do the scrappy structural 

 details bring us any nearer a decision as to what precisely is. 

 intended. Some colour is lent to Sig Thor's contention that 

 these are Lebertiad species in respect that iconicus is rough 

 skinned (glanzlos), has no swimming hairs and has the epimera 

 (Bruststiick) produced into two sharp teeth, one on each side of 

 the palpi. Inaequalis is smooth skinned, has swimming hairs 

 and has the epimera as in iconicus. The first may belong to 

 sub-genus Lebertia ( = Neolebertia Sig Thor) or to Pseudolebertia. 

 The second may be, as Thor has placed it, a Pilolebertia species. 

 If we turn to Koch's figures, we observe that iconicus (fig. 23) alone 

 represents the palpi with the long hairs so characteristic of the 

 genus Lebertia, though not in any detail, merely indicating the 

 existence of such. The ground is so uncertain that Thor admits 

 with respect to iconicus that exact identification is out of the 

 question and that the most that can be done is to record it as 

 Lebertia iconica (C. L. Koch) sp. dub. 



With regard to inaequalis, Thor admits the difficulty in 

 deciding that figs. 20 and 21 represent the same species. If 

 we consider what appears to represent the natural size of each, 

 we are led rather to the view that instead of a male, fig. 20 

 represents a young nymph, which would probably account for 

 the absence of swimming hairs on the second pair of legs. These 

 are shown distinctly on the second pair of legs in fig. 21, though 



