1 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 
stumpf dreieckigen. Der innere Hocker diirfte nach Analogie mit 
Campodea den lobus internus, der atissere die gemeinschaftliche Anlage 
des Lobus externus und des Palpus maxillaris vorstellen.” I entirely 
disagree with the author as to the interpretation of the lobes. In 
Anurida the lobus externus is not developed out of the palpal lobe of 
the biramous fundament, but the remaining lobe is the common funda- 
ment of lobus externus and lobus internus. Therefore Uzel’s foot-note 
on page 36, “An den Maxillarpalpen von Macrotoma (Tomocerus) vul- 
garis fand ich selbst einen kleinen Vorsprung, der wohl als Lobus ex- 
ternus zu deuten ist,” etc., is open to criticism; the minute papilla to 
which he refers is precisely like several other papille distributed upon 
the palpus (see Folsom, ’99, Plate 3, Figure 18, p/p.), except for a trifling 
difference in size. It is very doubtful if a difference in this matter exists 
between Anurida and Tomocerus, especially since the process as observed 
by me agrees with that of insects in general, as far as is known, excepting 
possibly Lepisma, presently to be noticed. 
Uzel applied to Tomocerus conclusions drawn from Campodea, in 
which he (’98, pp. 33-34, Taf. VI. Figuren 79, 80) derives the galea 
from the palpal lobe. His diagrams, unfortunately, do not elucidate 
the basal relations of the three principal lobes: palpus, galea, and 
lacinia. 
The completed first maxille of Campodea (Meinert, ’65, Taf. XIV. 
Figuren 17, 18; Grassi, 86°, Tav. IV. Figure 2, 13; v. Stummer- 
Traunfels, 91, Taf. I. Figuren 5, 11) are remarkably like those of Col- 
lembola (Folsom, ’99, Plate 3, Figures 18-21): the cardo is articulated 
to the superlingual stalk in the same way; the hollow stipes, distinct 
head, galea, and lacinia are also alike, and resemble less the homologous 
parts of Pterygote insects. The solid bifid galea and the fringed seven- 
lobed lacinia of Campodea, as I call them, are by Grassi and v. Stummer- 
Traunfels regarded collectively as the “innere Lade” or lacinia. The 
latter author says (p. 223), ‘ Man kann daher bei den drei vorliegenden 
Formen eine successive Riickbildung des Aussenladens annehmen. Bei 
Japyx noch zweifach gegliedert, ist er be1 Campodea schon mehr reducirt 
und fehlt bei den Collembolen giinzlich.” It is curious to observe how 
authors have followed one another in deriving the galea from the palpal 
fundament. I have shown in Anurida (anticipating later conclusions) 
that the galea and lacinia both originate from the “ endopodite” of the 
bifid fundament. a 
Japyx, of course, agrees substantially with Campodea. The second 
maxilla, however (Meinert, ’65, Taf. XIV. Figuren 8, 9; Grassi, ’g6°, 
