16 



77 



and the rhomboid figure on the cephalothorax correspond neither 

 to those of biverrucatus nor to those of horridus. 



I therefore adopt Camisia horrida (Herm.), Camisia nicoletii 

 Oudms. (z= horrida Nic, = horrida Berl.), and Camisia biverrucata 

 (0. L. Koch). 



Consequently Camisia berlesi Oudms. and Camisia fischeri Oudms. 

 do not exist. 



26. Enieiitlation in the key to the species of Camisia. 



(Das Tierreich, Oribatidae, p. 69). 



Central projection with tubercles at cor- 

 ners, each hearing one hair . . . .16a. 



Central projection with tubercles at cor- 

 ners, each bearing two hairs , C. nicoletii Oudms. 

 16a = 16 of the table. 



27. Eremaeus confervae Schrank. 



In the Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, vol. 39, p. 175, I men- 

 tioned my capture of a mite, living in water amongst Confer- 

 vaceae, which I considered to be identical to Acarus confervae 

 of Schrank. On p. 177 1 explained the reasons on which I based 

 my supposition. I maintain my suggestion. 



On p. 176 I wrote: »Alber,t D. Michael in his British Oriba- 

 tidae, London, 1884, vol. I, p. 57, speaks of an aquatic Notaspis, 

 which he calls Notaspis lacustris. I am not aware that he has 

 described and drawn this species elsewhere. Yet I am fully con- 

 vinced, that Schrank's Acarus confervae and Michael's Notaspis 

 lacustris are one and the same species." 



lt is true: that at that time, April 1896, I was not aware of 

 the existence of Michael's vol. II. 



In January 1897 I wrote Mr. Michael in consequence of some 

 remarks he had made in a letter, and stated among other things 

 that I had not yet been able to consult his vol. II. 



In reply I received a most courteous letter and a copy of the 



