DAMJIUS GENICULATUS. 431 



and uses the name of auritus, a name which he takes 

 from a totally distinct species of Koch's, which, for 

 some reason which is entirely beyond my comprehen- 

 sion, he christens riparius, although he expressly and 

 correctly states that it is Koch's auritus. Nicolet 

 starts the synonomy of his D. geniculatus with Koch, 

 whose name he puts after the species ; whereas it is 

 manifest that if Koch's species had been different from 

 Linnasus's, then the name should have been retained 

 for the species of the earlier not the later writer ; and, 

 oddly enough, Nicolet also gives Koch's D. geniculatus 

 as a synonym of D. davvpes (Nicolet' s auritus). Finally, 

 Canestrini and Fauzago, notwithstanding Nicolet's 

 exposition of the difference of the species, treat 

 geniculatus and clavipes as identical, but they call it 

 Belba geniculata, they and some other writers con- 

 sidering that Heyden's name of Belba should be used 

 instead of Koch's later name of Bamoius, but Hey den 

 founded his genus upon the iy^e oi Notaspis cori/nojms, 

 Hermann, which is not a Damceus at all.* It may 

 possibly have been supposed to be a Dammus because 

 Hermann drew it with a monodactyle claw ; he makes 

 several errors as to the claws, which was only natural 

 when we remember the date at which he wrote. 



This is probably the largest species of the British 

 OrihatidcB. 



Colour very dark brown or black, legs a trifle lighter. 



Texture dull, very slightly rough ; this is hardly seen 

 in the living specimen ; the roughness is entirely pro- 

 duced by small wart-like projections of the epios- 

 tracum. In the prepared specimens this layer sepa- 

 rates very readily and then these markings are very 

 clearly seen, on some parts of the creature, particularly 

 on the proximal joints of the legs, they are elongated 

 so as to form short, filiform processes, which, however, 

 are apt to be partially rubbed off, and indeed the epios- 



* At vol. i, p. 33, I have accidentally put down Belba as equalling 

 Dameeus, Koch, and part of Oppia, Koch, which is a slip. It does not 

 equal Damceus, although they are generally treated as identical. 



