446 Transactions of the Society. 



Sub-family 5. Parisolabinte. 



Zacher figures the genitalia of Parisolabis novx-zeelandite Verb.., 

 in which the metaparameres are short, broad, and pointed ; the 

 virga is not very long, has an inflated vesicle, and a spiral structure. 



In Parisopsalis spryi Burr the metaparameres are narrow, 

 elongate, curved in the form of a crescent, and rounded at the apex. 

 The virga is short and broad, somewhat inflated towards the apex, 

 with spiral structure (PL IX. fig. 15). 



In Idolopsalis rivcti Bor. the metaparameres have a Psalidine 

 appearance. They are broad, narrowed but rounded at the tip, the 

 outer margin sinuate, and a false inner margin ; the virga long 

 and coiled at the end, but the spiral structure is visible almost 

 throughout the whole length ; the basal vesicle is feebly marked, 

 and reinforced by fibrous chitinous growth (PI. IX. fig. 13). 



In /. andeana Burr we have very similar structure ; the meta- 

 parameres are broad in basal half, somewhat dilated, and narrowed 

 in apical half, to a rounded tip. The virga is long, nearly straight, 

 with spiral structure and a small chitinous reinforcement near the 

 base (PI. IX. fig. 14). 



The metaparameres of the former resemble those of Euborellia 

 greeni from the Shervaroys ; those of the latter recall Gonolabis 

 picea. 



In /. whymperi the metaparameres are lanceolate, being broadest 

 about the middle and acuminate at the tips ; the virga is straight. 

 My specimen is very defective ; in fact, all my specimens of this 

 genus are from very old and dry individuals (PI. IX. fig. 12). 



Sub-family 6. Beachylabin^;. 



I am obliged to cross swords with my very esteemed colleague 

 Dr. Zacher with some of his remarks under this heading. He 

 finds fault with my placing of the Brachylabinse as a sub-family of 

 the Labiduridse, yet he himself ranges them in his Zabiduriales, 

 which is the same thing. Again, from his remarks on pages 387 

 and 389, he implies that one character of the group is that the 

 branches of the male forceps are contiguous at the base, but in the 

 majority of species they are remote. He explains the apparent 

 inconsistencies of Blanchard's figure of Forficula (now Brachylabis) 

 chilcnsis by the assumption that the drawing illustrates a different 

 creature from the one described, but my recollection of the figure, 

 which I have not had occasion to see recently, is that it has a 

 decidedly Brachylabine appearance, and the apparent inconsist- 

 encies may be more readily explained by careless draughtsmanship. 



Zacher figures the genitalia of Zeptisolabis usambarana Verh., 

 and of Isolabis braucri Verh., presumably from Verhoeff's original 

 material, but without any reference in the text. He also shows 



