co) 
FOLSOM: MOUTH-PARTS OF ANURIDA MARITIMA. 133 
be restricted ; while, for the dorso-lateral appendages, rejecting “ para- 
glossve,” I propose the more appropriate name “ superlingue.” 
The “gnathochilarium” of Symphyla and Diplopoda may also prove 
to be in part homologous with the hexapod labium. Having already 
discussed the resemblances between the lateral portions of the gnatho- 
chilarium and the first maxille, I may compare the median components 
with the labium. They were, in fact, designated “under lip” in Sco- 
lopendrella by Grassi (’86*, Tav. II. Figura 5). As in Apterygota, there 
is a median portion and two stipal plates, each of which bears a papil- 
late head, separated by a transverse suture. These are the only 
points of agreement. On the contrary, the gnathochilarium is usually 
homologized with the first maxillee of insects (Packard, ’g3°, p. 199; 
Korschelt u. Heider, 90-93, p. 906) —apparently on account of Met- 
schnikoff’s (74) researches. I can only-suggest that the under lip of 
Diplopods is anatomically of too compound a nature to be homologized 
with the first maxillz only, and that we are not warranted in deriving 
the entire lip from only two primary fundaments simply because Met- 
schnikoff did not allude to more than two. In fact, Heymons (’97, p. 7, 
Figur 2) has discovered a “ post-maxillary” segment, without append- 
ages, in the embryo of Glomeris ; but he regards it as equivalent to the 
labial segment of insects. In other Diplopoda, for example Lysiopetalum 
(Latzel, 84, Taf. IX. Figur 104) and Craspedosoma (Latzel, ’84, Taf. 
VL. Figur 72), the structure of the under lip is remarkably like that in 
Scolopendrella. 
In Chilopoda there are two fleshy, jointed appendages (“first maxilli-- 
pedes,” “zweites Unterkieferpaar”), which are conceivably equivalent, 
in position only, to the second maxilla of Hexapoda, and are generally 
homologized with the first pair of legs of Diplopoda. If the second 
maxillz of insects are represented among Diplopoda in the manner I 
have suggested, then the second pair of Chilopod “ maxillipedes ” 
(“ Kieferfusspaar””) corresponds with the first pair of feet of both 
Diplopoda and Hexapoda, —a simple conception. 
The labium of Hexapods is homologous with the first pair of maxilli- 
peds of Crustacea, according to the homologies which I have already 
proposed for all the more anterior paired appendages. It is, then, erro- 
neous to homologize with each other the second maxille in these two 
classes; but the error is so firmly established that I have in this paper 
frequently employed the term “second maxille” for the labium of 
insects, in order to avoid confusion. 
The evidence for my view of the homologies of the labium is of the 
VOL. XXXVI. — NO. 5 4 
