[From Proc. T. N. Nat. ,Vs., xi, 1888, pp. 335-338.] 

 NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF MYRIAPODA FROM CUBA. 



HV CHARLES II. UOLI.MAN. 



This paper is based on a small but interesting collection of myria- 

 pods that I have received from Prof. Felipe Poey, of Havana, Cuba. 



As Prof. Poey did not mention any particular locality in the island 

 of Cuba, I suppose that most of the species are from the vicinity of 

 Havana. 



1 desire to tender my thanks to Prof. Poey for the material I have 

 received from his hands, and to Dr. Juan Gundlach for a specimen of a 

 Sentigera. 



The types of the new species hare been deposited in the IT. 8. Na- 

 tional Museum. 



1. Siphonophora portoriceiisis Brandt. 



Siphonophora portoricensis Brandt, Bull. Acad. St. Petersb., 1836 (name only, testc 

 Gervais); Brandt, Recneil, 50, 1811 (mime only, tente Cierrals); Koch, iSyst. 

 Myr., 143, 1847 (name OH///); Gervais, Apteres, 209, 1847 (name OH?//); Peters, 

 Monatsber. kirn, preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 549, 1864 (first description); 

 Karscb, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belgiqur, 166, 1884. 



SipltonopUont citbana Karscb, Mittbeil. Miindi. Ent. \Yr., 144,1880; Borre, Ann. 

 Soc. Ent. B.'lgiqne, 81,1884. 



I have received from Prof. Poey a dried Siplionophora, which I have 

 been unable to separate from either Sipli. portoricensis Brandt, or &i]>h. 

 ciibana Karsch. 



Concerning the differences between these two species, Karsch, under 

 his description of /SVp/t. cubana, says: 



" An eadem species cum Sipli. portoricensis Br., qua tamen capite basi 1 /!<<', ruxtro 

 mill to breriore et pra'clpue longitudine miilto miiiorc .satin diffi'm' ritlffnr ?" 



As such differences are practically valueless, it is best to consider 

 . portoricensis and eub<i><(i as forming one species. 



2. Namioleiie cubensis, sp. nov. 



Diagnosis. Related to Nannolcnt- Ixirlici Pollman,but the cii'ctilar de- 

 pressions along the transverse segmental sutures not extending all 

 around the segment as in burke-i, but only to the repugnatorial ]>ore. 



The following differences are also worthy of note: 



Dark brownish-blue, posterior border of segments brown, an indis- 

 tinct row of lateral spots, antenna' and legs light-brown. Ocelli dis- 

 86 



