84 ENTOMOLOGISK TIDSKRIFT 1 894. 



piece (d. in fig, 8 and fig. 9), which perhaps belongs to the inner 

 skeleton of the head (PI. 2, fig. 10, n in this paper), and most 

 decidedly has nothing to do with the maxilla. 



Somebody will perhaps assert it being impossible, that an 

 Entomologist so well reputed as H. de Saussure has been able 

 to commit such great and curious errors in the representation of 

 the mouth-organs of an Insect of such a considerable size, that 

 he consequently has examined a totally difterent animal, and that 

 my above remarks then are quite unwarrantable. Hereupon I will 

 answer that the animals from Kamerun examined by me most 

 decidedly must be referred at least to the same genus as Saus- 

 sure' s animal (about the chance of another species see later on), 

 and here are- my reasons, i) The specimen described by Saus- 

 sure was given him by the British Museum and taken out of a 

 little series of mounted, dried specimens; in London I have myself 

 (in 1891, see above) examined the dissected mouth-parts of a pair 

 of the specimens and concerning the »labium supérieur» and the 

 shape of hypopharynx and maxillula; I arrived to results very 

 exactly agreeing with the foregoing description. 2) Saussure's 

 description and figures of the shape of the body, the number of 

 joints in the antennse, the shape of the mandibles and of the inner 

 and outer lobe of the maxillœ, the size and form of the labial 

 sternum, and of pro-, meso- and metasternum, the characteristic 

 shape and structure of the tibiae and of the abdominal cerci, the 

 existence of 2 exterior sexual hooks in the male etc. show evi- 

 dently, that his animal belongs to the same genus as those 

 examined by me, for otherwise such accordance in so many essen- 

 tial structural features was hardly possible. If Walker's and 

 Saussure's species are identical with mine is, on the other hand, 

 another and much more difficult question; Saussure's description 

 and especially his figures are in several particulars not sufficiently 

 correct to settle this question with complete certainty. The geo- 

 graphical occurrence: Sierra Leone and Kamerun, does not yield 

 any point of support, because the host, Cricetomys gainbiamis, 

 has not been determined with absolute certainty by T. Tullberg 

 (see p. 44) in his work quoted p. 82, the possibility not being 

 excluded, that the Rodent is Cric, dissimilis de Rochebr., and 

 besides Cric, gambiatiiis has been found in Senegambia, north 



20 



