550 IVAR TRÀGARDH 



In M. s figure (1886, pi. 16, fig. 17) the epigynial shield is drawn 

 a little too pointed anteriorly, and the endopodal shields, which 

 exist in the angles between coxœ III and IV, are not delineated. 



Berlese referred the species to Eugamasus (1), on account 

 of the two dorsal shields, since the shape of the epigynial 

 shield, according to Michael's drawing did not seem to 

 oppose this view. 



Berlese, however, did not pay enough attention to M. 's sta- 

 tement (p. 267). « On the ventral surface the sternal plate is 

 divided into an anterior and a posterior (génital) plate. This 

 statement, from such a careful and skilled observer as Michael, 

 is a sufficient proof that there are no distinct metasternal 

 shields in E. terribilis, contrary to the gen. Eugamasus ; and 

 in conséquence, Berlese was wrong in referring it to that 

 genus. 



In 1901, Oudemans pointed out Berlese's mistake, and 

 establised a new genus, Euryparasitus, for it. According to 

 0.« the génital shield of the female is perfectly resembling 

 that of the nymphae i'phidijormes of the genus Laelaeps » i. e. 

 anteriorly broadly rounded. 



Curiously enough, it escaped O.'s notice that no mention 

 hadbeenmade of the metasternal shields. Oudemans gives 

 no diagnosis of the genus, but confines himself to correcting 

 the figure of the epigynial shield. 



Subsequently, in 1903, Oudemans described the nympha 

 which liad been discovered, together with some adults of both 

 sexes, by Mr S. A. Poppe of Vegesack, in a mole's nest. 



When I found the species in Racovitza's collection, and 

 studied the literature about it, it struck me as a very remark- 

 able circumstance that no mention Avhatever was made of 

 the metasternal shields of the female. I suspected that this 

 was due to their being fused with the sternal shield, as is 

 the case in other gênera, as for instance in Gamasellus and 

 Protolaelaps. 



(1) B. wrongly calls it horribUis. 



