NEW AMERICAN CRYPTOPID GENUS — CRABILL 13 



Supplementary Notes 



1. Unfortunately, the ultimate legs of the British Guianan Kartops 

 have never been described. "Cryptopiform," a new term, is used here 

 to describe the recurrent type of ultimate leg seen in the genus Cryp- 

 tops and characterized by the possession of an opposable second 

 tarsus capable of being flexed against the first tarsus and lower tibia 

 to form a clasping apparatus. 



2. For a clarification of the correct allocation of Scolopocryptops 

 (formerly Otocryptops) and Dinocryptops (formerly Scolopocryptops), 

 the reader is referred to Crabill, 1953, p. 96. Careful examination 

 discloses that members of the two genera are very similar save m one 

 striking particular, the presence in Dinocryptops and the absence in 

 Scolopocryptops of seventh pedal segment spiracles. Nonetheless, 

 I beheve them to be more closely related to each other than either of 

 them is to any other scolopocryptopine genus now known. The loss 

 of spiracles among the scolopendromorph genera is like the loss of 

 primary tarsal division among certain genera and species, or like the 

 variation in the Lithobiomorpha in tergital production. All are 

 changes that may proceed independently within quite different evolvmg 

 fines. So it is that we encounter all states of tarsal change both 

 within the Scolopendromorpha and Lithobiomorpha. For the same 

 reason we find both spiracular conditions (seventh segment spiracles 

 present or absent) in both great divisions of the Scolopendromorpha. 

 As is weU known, considerable variability in this character is also 

 seen in the lithobiomorphous Henicopidae. I believe, therefore, that 

 these changes are taking place repeatedly in parallel fashion in- 

 dependently within different phyletic lines. I am less certain of thek 

 direction, though the evidence suggests that the trend is toward 

 spiracular loss, tarsal consolidation (the bipartite tarsus becoming 

 undivided), and in the Lithobiomorpha toward the secondary loss of 

 tergital corners — these changes appearing concomitantly with pro- 

 gressive body contraction and consolidation. 



3. To insure our understanding one another, I feel that it is most 

 desirable to establish a uniform terminology for the setae, spines, spurs, 

 and other armature of the centipede leg and body sclerite. For 

 instance, the word spine as it is currently used in the hterature often 

 refers to a variety of structures among which it is obviously desirable 

 to distinguish. Equally if not more confusing is the ruck of German 

 terms that one must depend upon in the great monographs — Sporne, 

 Hocker, Spinen, Zapfen, Borsten, Sagezahne, and Dornen— all of 

 which when unqualified or when used differently upon different oc- 

 casions lead to much misunderstanding and confusion. The termi- 

 nology that I have adopted and used consistently for some years 

 is based upon the definitions of Professor Comstock (1940, p. 32) and 



