MILLIPED GENUS CHEROKIA — HOFFMAN 229 



the type species, but he did not stipulate which other names belonged 

 in Cherokia. 



During the summer of 1949, I acquired considerable field experience 

 with Cherokia in the southern Appalachians. In a paper appearing 

 the following year, I discussed variation and distribution in the genus 

 and concluded that of the five which had been proposed, only a single 

 specific name was valid. This synonymy was based on topotypes of 

 tallulah and ducilla, specimens from near the type locality of furcifer, 

 and Bollman's types of both tallulah and georgiana. No attempt was 

 made to consider the general problem of geographic variation over 

 the entire range. But in subsequent years, with the acquisition of 

 rich collections made in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee by Leslie 

 Hubricht, I found it necessary to review the status of the genus, and 

 the outcome of the investigation is presented in the following paper. 



MATERIALS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The material studied is included in more than 105 lots and totals 

 well over 400 individuals. Probably 95 percent of these are in my 

 personal collection (RLH), thanks to the kindness of many friends who 

 have picked up millipeds incidental to their own line of special interest. 

 Specimens have also been examined in the following collections: 

 American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), New York City, 

 Chicago Natural History Museum (CNIIM), Chicago; and U.S. 

 National Museum (USNM), Washington, D.C. 



The type specimens of Fontaria georgiana and F. tallulah of Bollman 

 are in the U.S. National Museum and have been studied. Topotypes 

 of tallulah, Mimuloria ducilla, and M. furcifer have been seen in life 

 and have provided an idea of the basis of those three names. 

 Specimens collected less than 20 miles from the type locality of 

 Dynoria parvior, while not strictly topotypical, are nonetheless 

 representative of the population described under that name and make 

 its evaluation possible with considerable confidence. 



Methods of study outlined in previous papers have been followed 

 and need no repetition here. Because of the confused state of nomen- 

 clature in the genus, all previously published information was rejected 

 as prejudicial. Specific characters and the distribution of populations 

 thus defined were worked out at the beginning; only after this work 

 had been done was the application of available names undertaken. 



Particular attention has been paid to the evaluation and comparison 

 of localized populations in order to determine geographic variation. 

 In this respect, likewise, each of the structural variables found useful 

 in diagnosis has been separately plotted cartographieally. These 

 precautions have been found useful in light of the remarkably uniform 

 gonopod structure in all of the specimens, a condition which compelled 

 my giving attention to details of body form. 



