114 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 
decrease in size, and a small median lobe does not appear on the anterior 
surface of the lingua. 
In the finished condition in Campodea (Meinert, ’65, Taf. XIV. Fig- 
uren 17, 19) lingua and superlingue are simple but distinct lobes, and 
the small fourth lobe mentioned by Uzel persists. The lingual stalks 
are surprisingly like those of Orchesella ; the articulation with the cardo 
Meinert did not show, but it has since been observed by v. Stummer- 
Traunfels. 
The English translator of Meinert’s paper is really responsible for the 
use of the terms “lingua’’ and “paraglosse”’ in connection with this 
subject, and not Meinert himself; the latter writer applied only the 
Danish expressions ‘Tungen” and “ Bitungens tvende Flige.”’ 
Von Stummer-Traunfels (91, Taf. I. Figur 11) also represents the 
“ Ligula,’”’ “ Paraglosse,” and “ Stiitzstiicken ” of Campodea. On page 
121 I criticise this author for holding that the so-called maxillary 
palpus of Collembola belongs to the neighboring superlingua. The em- 
bryology shows that the delicate membrane connecting either palpus 
and superlingna is of quite subsidiary importance, being simply as much 
of the cuticula of the maxillary pocket as intervenes between the base 
of a superlingua and the adjacent maxilla, —in fact, only the anterior 
portion of the cuticula surrounding the tissues which attach the maxilla 
to the head. 
Japyx agrees closely with Campodea in the structure of these organs 
(Meinert, ’65, Taf. XIV. Figur 8 ; von Stummer-Traunfels, ’91, Taf. I. 
Figur 10), and there is no doubt about the homology of the lingua, 
superlingue, and lingual stalks of Japyx with those of Collembola. In 
the words of v. Stummer-Traunfels (’91, p. 221), “ Diese typische Form 
des Stiitzapparates und der Befestigung der Cardines an diesem findet 
sich bei Campodea, Japyx und den Collembola in beinahe identischer 
Weise ausgebildet.” The author is mistaken (91, p. 222), however, in 
saying that the mandibles are attached to the Stiitzapparate, apparently 
having overlooked the tentorium, which is quite another structure than 
his “ Stiitzapparat.” 
Regarding Lepisma, Heymons (’97*, p. 595) simply remarks: “Ich 
. . . bemerke nur, dass die Bildung der einzelnen K6rpertheile, z. B. 
des Hypopharynx der Mundwerkzeuge, durchaus an den bei Orthopteren 
bekannten Typus anschliesst.” 
Machilis, also, has decided Orthopteran affinities, as Wood-Mason (’79) 
found, yet the mouth-parts of both Lepisma and Machilis, although 
ectognathous, as in Orthoptera, are constructed upon fundamentally the 
