125 



somewhat smaller. Tail -not attaining half the length of the anterior division; 

 genital segment moderately dilated in its anterior part; anal segment exceeding 

 in length the 2 preceding ones combined. Caudal rami rather produced, being 

 more than twice as long as they are broad, and fully attaining the length of the 

 anal segment; outermost seta not far from the apex and somewhat shorter than 

 the innermost; the 2 middle setae of moderate length. Anterior antennae about 

 half the length of the cephalic segment, and composed of 8 (or 9) joints, the 2nd 

 being much the largest; terminal joint almost the length of the 2 preceding ones 

 combined. Posterior antennae with the terminal joint longer than the penultimate 

 one, middle apical seta of moderate length, the other 2 very small. Siphon rather 

 slender, extending beyond the limits of the cephalic segment. Mandibles nairow 

 styliform, and distinctly denticulated at the apex. Maxillae with the lobes com- 

 paratively narrow and somewhat unequal in length, apical seta of the inner one 

 quite short, those of the outer slender and subequal. Maxillipeds well developed, 

 dactyl us of the anterior ones moderately slender, with a small secondary spine 

 at some distance from the end; terminal claw comparatively short. 1st pair of 

 natatory legs not much smaller than the 2 succeeding ones, seta at the inner 

 corner of the 1st basal joint conspicuously thickened. 4th pair of legs with the 

 inner ramus much narrower than the outer and only slightly exceeding in length 

 the 2 first joints of this ramus combined, seta? present in the usual number, but 

 rather reduced in size Free joint of last pair of legs small, and as in the other 

 species provided with 3 bristles, the innermost one the longest. Ovisacs rather 

 large and globular in form. 



Colour not yet ascertained. 



Length of adult female 1.80 mm. 



Male unknown. 



Remarlcs. I think I am right in identifying the above-described form with 

 Brady's species, as it agrees fairly well in its outward appearance with the figure 

 given by that author. The apparent differences found in some of the structural 

 details may indeed be due to a less careful examination by the said author. It 

 appears to me somewhat more doubtful, if the form described by Canu as Arto- 

 trogus Normani, and subsequently named by Giesbrecht Bradypontius Caniii, is 

 in reality identical with the present species, as set foith by the last-named author 

 in his Monograph of the Asterocheridos j and the form briefly described and 

 figured by .Giesbrecht in the same Monograph as B. mayniceps, also seems to 

 differ in some respects. 



The present species was at first erroneously identified by Brady and 

 Robertson with Artotrogus orbicularis Boeck; and though this mistake was sub- 



