REVISION OF BORARIA AND GYALOSTETHUS — HOFFMAN 321 



5tli segment with 2 knobs between the 4th pan* of legs, other sterna 

 unmodified. 



Gonopod aperture (fig. 2) moderate in size, transversely oval, 

 posterior edge with an erect flared rim. Sternum between 8th pairs 

 of legs depressed. Coxae of gonopods large, almost in contact medially, 

 connected by a small elongate sternal remnant as shown in figure 4. 

 Gonopods elongate, extending cephalad between legs of the 6th 

 segment, the sternum of which is depressed to accommodate gonopodal 

 apices. Coxae somewhat flattened dorsoventrally, the dorsal side 

 without apophysis, with 2 macrosetae. Telopodite typically set at 

 nearly a right angle to coxite, slender, without indication of segmenta- 

 tion. Prefemoral region setose, elongate, about 60% of the entire 

 telopodite length, with a slender acicular prefemoral process. Distal 

 3rd of telopodite thin and hyaline, bent medially at about a 30° 

 angle from the median axis of telopodite, the terminal, and tridentate, 

 the distalmost lobe carrying the seminal groove (figs. 2, 3, 4). 



Female (Mount Squires, Blount Co., Tenn.) : Total length 37 mm., 

 width 7.1 mm., W/L ratio 19.2%. Structurally similar to male with 

 the following exceptions: 



Body proportionately more robust, gradually increasing in width 

 back to segment 15; paranota smaller than in male, the corners more 

 rounded, posterior corners acutely produced only on segments 15-19. 

 Dorsal tubercules much more prominent, easily visible without 

 magnification. Interzonal groove more distinct, longitudinally 

 vaguely costulate. Podosterna broader and not quite so elevated, 

 legs set about 2.7 mm. apart on midbody segments. Color essentially 

 as described for male. 



Cyphopods of the form shown in figure 5. 



Variation. — There appears to be no appreciable structural varia- 

 tion within the range of Boraria stricta. I have closely compared 

 specimens from Georgia and Virginia with each other and with 

 material from North Carolina and can find no departures aside from 

 individual and sexual variation in size. Even this is highly sporadic 

 in distribution, and I could locate no particular area where populations 

 tended to be larger or smaller than the average for the species. As 

 usual in the genus, females are distinctly larger than males and have a 

 higher W/L ratio, as shown by the following table (averages in 

 parentheses), which is based on 10 specimens of each sex selected at 

 random : 



sex number length (mm.) width (mm.) W/L ratio (%) 



males 10 26.0-30.5 (28.7) 4.5-5.3 (5.0) 16.7-18.5 (17.5) 



females 10 30.0-37.0 (33.6) 5.4-7.0 (6.4) 18.0-19.9 (18.9) 



T63-2a7 —65 2 



