MILLIPEDS — KEETON 7 



that of the average Brachoria but the bulk is considerably greater 

 than is usual in that genus. If turneri, which is somewhat inter- 

 mediate in bulk, is in Tucoria, the question of the new species ligula 

 and hubrichti immediately arises. The bulk of then* gonopods is not 

 much less than turneri yet they closely approach the relative bulk of 

 such Brachoria species as ochra, electa, and glendalea. Thus it becomes 

 obvious that this character is not effective in separating Tucoria and 

 Brachoria inasmuch as the presently known species form such a con- 

 tinuum that it is impossible to say v/here dividing lines should be. 



In the case of the prefemoral spine as a generic character, attention 

 is called to the two new species Brachoria hoffmani and B. laminata. 

 Though these are Tucoria-like in bulk, they both show very strong 

 development of cylindrical, acute, prefemoral spines. Thus, using 

 Causey's criterion, they would be assigned to Brachoria. At the 

 other extreme, however, a specimen of eutypa from North Carolina, 

 though typical of Brachoria in bulk, shows practically no development 

 of the prefemoral spine. It would, as a result, be placed in Tucoria 

 if the spine were used as a generic character. The new species 

 Brachoria dentata is also more like the typical Brachoria than Tucoria 

 in all respects except the spine which is nearly absent. The final and 

 strongest argument is, however, the fact that this character has been 

 found to exhibit considerable individual variation. The case of B. 

 eutypa mentioned above is an example. Most specimens of this sub- 

 species have weU-developed spines while the single North Carolina 

 specimen does not. Likewise study of a series of specimens of the 

 new species insolita shows variation in the spine from near nonexistence 

 to moderate development. Thus this character cannot be used to 

 separate Tucoria and Brachoria. 



Careful stud}^ has not revealed even a single character that will 

 make possible a consistent and m.eaningful separation of Tucoria from 

 Bi^achoria. It is, therefore, my opinion that Tucoria must fall as a 

 synonym of Brachoria. 



The genus Anfractogon was described by Hoffman (1948a) to in- 

 clude the species tenebrans from Alabama. Hoffman stipulated three 

 characters as diagnostic of the genus. The first was the processes on 

 the sternites of the thu'd, fom-th, and fifth legs of the male. This 

 study has shown that processes are always present in Brachoria on 

 the sternites of the thu'd and fom*th legs and that those on the sternite 

 of the fifth legs are quite variable. 



The second character mentioned by Hoffman was the form of the 

 prefemoral spine. This has ali'eady been shown in the discussion of 

 Tucoria to be a variable character and of no value on the generic level. 



The thu'd character was the much-modified distal end of the male 

 gonopod. The species recently described by Causey as Brachoria 



