61 



larva mentioned above sub Temnopleunis loreumaliciis (p. 53), so that 

 this may well l)e supposed to be a normal case. The place of the posterior 

 transverse rod, as shown in PI. XI. Fig. 3 is somewhat unusual, so that one 

 might he tempted lo suggest that it has been somewhat transplaced 

 upwards on preservation. I would, however, be inclined to think that 

 it lies in its normal position, especially since it lies in the same way in the 

 above mentioned 

 larva of Tcmnopleu- 

 rus loreumaliciis (?) ; 

 but this can. of 

 course, only be de- 

 cided through ob- 

 servations on the 

 living larva. The 

 dorsal arch has a 

 very characteristic 

 shape ; there are 

 two rather long 

 lateral processes; 

 at the point where 

 they proceed the 

 arch makes an ob- 

 tuse angle, and the 

 part beyond (the 

 preoral rod) makes 

 a graceful bending. 

 The posterior me- 

 dian process is 

 short. All the simple 



rods are nearly 

 completely smooth. 

 The branching 

 end of the body 

 rods, the existence 

 of vibratile epaulets, but apparently not of vibratile lobes, and the 

 presence of a posterior transverse rod is a combination of features which 

 appears to be characteristic of the Temnopleurids; it seems therefore 

 justifiable to suggest that also this larva belongs to a Temnopleurid. Any 

 suggestion of the species or genus to which it belongs would appear to be 

 hopeless; it may only be said that it may probably belong to another 

 genus than the larvae described as species a and b, its very peculiar 



Fig. 22. Skeleloii of Temnopleurid-larva, species c. l-'ront view, 

 sliglitly oblique. '^/,. Letters as in rif*. 20. 



