]6 G. C. Cbampton and W. H. Hasey, 



ideas concerning" the intrepretation of the parts of the coxa, in his 

 earlier work, for in the paper published in 1883, Packard usually 

 designates the anterior portion of the coxa (or the veracoxa) as the 

 "trochantine" ; and restricts the term coxa to the posterior portion 

 of the coxa (or to the meron), thus reversing the order which he 

 uses in his later work, in which he applies the term coxa to the 

 anterior portion ot the coxa, and the term trochantine to the 

 posterior portion of the coxa. In some insects, such as ConjdaUs, 

 Packard, 1883, calls the meron, the "infra- epiraerum" (see tab. 64, 

 figs, 2 and 3, of Packard's work), apparently not recognizing the 

 true nature of the sclerite in question, in the different insects. 

 Indeed, Packard has hopelessly confused the homologies of the 

 sclerites in his earlier work, and his figures are frequently so 

 inaccurate as to make it extremely difficult to determine exactly 

 what sclerite he intended to portray. In general terms, however, 

 it may be said that he regarded the true trochantin as one of the 

 three subdivisions of which he thought the episternum is composed 

 (e. g. as in his fig. 13, tab. 32, of the thorax of the roach Peri- 

 planeta). 



It is possible that the fact that Packard, 1883, designated the 

 meron as the ''infra-epimeron" in such insects as Conjdalis, may 

 have given rise to the idea that the meron is a detached lower 

 portion of the epimeron, which has become adherent to the coxa. 

 At any rate, Kolbe, 1893, who terms the meron a "stützendes Hüft- 

 stück" (i. e. a supporting coxal piece) in his fig. 168 of the hind 

 leg of Panorpa, states that it appears to be a process of the epi- 

 meron, which has become demarked from the remainder of the epi- 

 meron, by the formation of a suture. Kolbe, however, expressly 

 states that this "stützendes Hüftstück" is different from the "Hüft- 

 angel" or trochantin, while Sharp, 1895, who likewise designates 

 the meron as a "coxal fold of the epimeron" in his fig. 58, of the 

 hind leg of Panorpa, states that it "may possibly be the homologue 

 of the the trochantin of some insects". Snodgrass, 1909, likewise 

 maintains that the meron is a detached portion of the epimeron, 

 which has become adherent to the coxa, on the ground that in the 

 pupal stages of Corydalis.^ the meron is not sharply demarked from 

 the epimeron, but becomes first marked off in the adult sf'.^e. To 

 this argument, it might be replied that in the far more primitive 

 forms, such as the Blattidae, the meron is clearly a portion of the 

 coxa, and is distinctly separated from the epimeron. It is imper- 



