20O ENJO.MOLOGISK IIDSKRIFT IQOI. 



subjoints possessing a wliorl of glabrous setai as similar — and 

 almost belter — joints, and perhaps even the i)asal part of the 

 joints following on the those adorned with subapical whorls must 

 be counted. Mr. Burner thinks it to be a good reason for 

 counting the very short basal joint that it remains on the abdo- 

 men, when the »Flagellum sich vom Körper loslöst- , but I can 

 state that I have found a tlagellum of K. Diirahilis broken just 

 in the membrane between a joint and its following subjoint with 

 the glabrous setaî. A\'e get in A', mirabilis thirteen long joints, 

 six subjoints with a strong whorl, one (the basal) subjoint with 

 a few shorter seta^ and, if one wishes it, still six subjoints without 

 setie (not taking Mr. Burner's apical joint into account): ])ut 

 this becomes rather complicated, and I should prefer the old 

 mode of counting, considering only the long joints as being real 

 ones, the others as secondary ones or subjoints. For the rest 

 the reader is referred to ni)- subsecjuent description of the tla- 

 gellum of the various species. 



Mr. Borner spends almost six pages (with four figures) on 

 the description of the cephalothoracic appendages — but I cannot 

 praise it much. A part of it is measurements of all the joints 

 and counting of setce etc.; it may be very industrious, but 1 am 

 unable to perceive the value of it. To day I have studied six 

 species from very different regions of the world, and now 1 think 

 it fortunate that Dr. W. Sören.sen and I did not expatiate upon 

 all »details» in the single species, K. mirabilis, as Mr. Borner 

 has done: when several species are procured it is possible to 

 point out the differences worth mentioning, but an exceedingly 

 long description with endless counting of hairs and about half a 

 hundred measurements of a single species of an order will later 

 on prove itself to be for the most part superlluous — and in 

 spite of its extreme length it of course does not contain several 

 points which are valuable as specific characters. And some of 

 Mr. Burner's statements on topics deemed by me worthy of a 

 re-examination are not even correct. On the distal part of the 

 first pair of legs (third pair of appendages) he has discovered 

 »Gabelhaare» and writes that these exceedingly short hairs »sind 

 bisher bei Kovncnia übersehen»; on fig. 12a in our previous 

 paper the largest of these hairs is drawn, but the enlargement 



S 



