British Orihatidse. By A. D. Michael, 41 



perfectly unmistakable. * It had often struck me that it was odd 

 the nymph of paliistris should present characters so opposed to 

 those of all other known nymphs of the family, but when a writer 

 of Nicole t's accuracy states that he has actually seen the trans- 

 formation, one does not suspect that he can be in error, and 

 accordingly in my former paper t I treated histriatus as being the 

 nymph of palustris (on the authority of Nicolet), and mentioned 

 its occurrence here. 



I will now return to my second aquatic nymph. I had col- 

 lected several, and had watched them carefully, and at last one 

 began to exhibit signs of an approaching change to the perfect 

 creature. I was curious to see what would emerge, and finally I 

 saw the transformation take place under my eyes on the stage of 

 my Microscope, and, to my utter amazement, the animal which 

 emerged* was Nicolet's histriatus (which he calls the nymph of 

 palustris), and I subsequently bred several. I compared them most 

 carefully with Nicolet's figure and description and with the mounted 

 specimens I had previously caught on land, but could not detect any 

 difierence ; the creatures seemed identical, and, as the result of many 

 subsequent observations, I have not any doubt about their being so ; 

 in order to satisfy myself, however, I thought it would be best to 

 collect some living specimens on land and compare them with the 

 living ones from the water. In collecting these I was further sur- 

 prised to find with them nymphs and larvae exactly like those found 

 in the water, and which I had supposed to be entirely aquatic. I 

 then endeavoured to breed them to the perfect stage, in which I was 

 successful, and, as I expected, Nicolet's histriatus again emerged. It 

 therefore appeared that I was dealing with an amphibious species. 

 In order to make sure of this I transferred some of the nymplis 

 caught on dry land into Sphagnum and water, and watched them ; 

 they did not seem any the worse for their change of habitat, but 

 lived on apparently quite as comfortably as before, and went through 

 their transformations into the perfect form just as if they had been 

 left on land. I kept the adult which had emerged for some time 

 in water and sphagnum and it seemed quite content. I should have 

 liked to have tried the converse experiment of placing the aquatic 

 specimens on dry moss and seeing how they throve, but unfortu- 

 nately by the time I had arrived at this stage the season was lar 

 advanced, my slay at Epping was terminating, and I could not 

 find any more aquatic nymphs. The above facts convince me that, 

 in spite of Nicolet's positive assertion and his general accuracy, he 

 is somehow in error in this instance. I will shortly summarize 



* Tlie matter is complioatod in Nicolct by a double printer's error (of which 

 there are several ainiilar in his work), !>}■ which in the list of contents of plate 2, and 

 in the description, the wronij; reference is f;iven for the nymph of /Kt/iifiris. Tho 

 right rcfcr( nee is |ilat(!7, i'\<^. 7, and this is corrcelly stated in thecontcntaof plate?. 



t This Journal, vol. ii. (1S7I>) p. 224. 



