GENUS EREM^US. 467 



the creatures appears to me to be important enough. 

 Nicolet came later ; he took E. ohlongus as his type 

 and described his genera distinctly enough ; to dis- 

 tinguish JEJremceus from Notaspis he relied chiefly on 

 the absence of lamellas in the former genus and their 

 presence in the latter, and on the claws of Eremceus 

 being heterodactyle while those of Notaspis are homo- 

 dactyle ; but, firstly, it seems to me that ohlongus 

 does possess lamellce, although they are small and 

 ill developed ; secondly, that the classification by 

 homodactyle and heterodactyle claws has altogether 

 broken down ; and indeed in Eremceus hrevipes, a 

 species closely allied to Nicolet's E. cymha, the claws 

 are as homodactyle as in some of the Notasjndes. Un- 

 fortunately, Nicolet only knew of three species of 

 Notaspis^ and he was doubtless influenced by regarding 

 the lamellse as the up-turned edges of a tectum (an 

 imaginary organ which does not exist) instead of what 

 they really are, viz. outfoldings of the cuticle of the 

 dorsum of the cephalothorax ; had he been acquainted 

 with the species known now, and had he been uninflu- 

 enced by the idea of a tectum, I do not think that he 

 would have separated his E. ohlongus from Notasjns. 

 Nicolet, however, did not stop here ; he put into the 

 genus Eremceus two new species discovered by him, 

 E. tibialis and E. cymha ; these really are creatures 

 which could not, in any way, be properly included in 

 the genus Notaspis, and in my opinion they fairly 

 require a separate genus, and, in spite of some trifling 

 points of agreement, I think they should not be in the 

 same genus as ohlongus ; they are perfectly well known 

 as Eremceus. I have therefore transferred ohlongus to 

 Notaspis, where I think it should be, and possibly I ought 

 to have dropped the name of Eremceus and given a new 

 name to the present genus ; I have not liked, however, 

 to do this as Eremceus cymha is so well known. I have 

 therefore retained the name, taking cymha as the type ; 

 the reader will therefore kindly remember that what- 

 ever the present genus, in this book, should be called, 



