PROC. ENT. SOC. WASH., VOL. 24, NO. 2, MAR., 1922 67 



embryology, Philiptschenko, 1912, has very clearly shown that 

 the supposed superlingual segment described by Folsom in 

 Anurida does not exist in this or any other insect, and that in 

 all probability what Folsom mistook for an embryonic super- 

 lingual segment was merely an artifact of some sort or as 

 Philiptschenko more tactfully expresses it, Folsom's description 

 of a superlingual segment is a 'lapsus calami." 



It was hardly necessary, however, for Philiptschenko to 

 point out the falsity of the claim that there is an embryonic 

 "superlingual" segment in Anurida^ since it is absolutely 

 patent that the developing superlinguae of Anurida correspond 

 in every way to the developing paragnaths of the isopod 

 crustacean Jaera if one compares Folsom's Fig. 21 of an Anurida 

 embryo with Fig. of a Jaera embryo by McMurrich, 1895; and 

 since the paragnaths of Crustacea are not modified limbs of a 

 distinct segment, it naturally follows that their homologues, the 

 superlinguae of insects, can not represent modified limbs of a 

 distinct segment, as I have pointed out in an article published 

 in Vol. 28 of Psyche, where it was shown that the location, form, 

 structure and embryological development of the superlinguae 

 of insects give absolute proof of the fact that the superlinguae 

 are in every way homologous with the paragnaths (not the 

 maxillulae) of Crustacea. Since the superlinguae are homolo- 

 gous with the paragnaths, it is an easy matter to compare the 

 maxillae of insects with the first maxillae (maxillulae) of Crus- 

 tacea, and comparative embryology has long shown that the 

 latter is the only correct method of homologizing the parts in 

 question in insects and Crustacea. 



In Vol. 29, No. 2, of the Journal of the New York Ent. Soc. 

 for June, 1921, I have shown that the mandible of an insect 

 represents only the basal or first segment (coxopodite) alone 

 of a crustacean limb, and in the present paper I would point out 

 the fact that the Uacinia of an insect's maxilla represents a lobe 

 of the second segment (basipodite) of a crustacean limb, while 

 the galea represents a lobe of another segment the third or 

 ischiopodite of a crustacean limb. It is therefore impos- 

 sible that the galea, lacinia, and other parts of an insect's 

 maxillae could be repeated in the mandible, as Smith, 

 Packard, and many others have claimed is the case. Fur- 

 thermore, the commonly accepted view that the palpus of 

 an insect's maxilla represents the exopodite of a biramous 

 crustacean limb, while the galea and lacinia of an insect's 

 maxilla represent the endopodite of such a biramous crus- 

 tacean limb is absolutely unfounded, tor, as will be shown 

 later, the maxillary palpus represents the terminal segments of 

 the endopodite ot a crustacean limb in \\huh lobe-like out- 

 growths of the second and third segments of the endopodite 



