546 BRITISH ORIBATIDiE. 



tidce, it is small and almost triangular, but terminates 

 anteriorly in a bifid, or rather paired, ligula, each 

 half of which terminates in two hooks or curved 

 hairs. 



The Palpi are almost cylindrical, and abundantly 

 furnished with long hairs in the distal portion ; Nicolet 

 says that they consist of four joints only, instead of the 

 five generally found in the family, and that the basal 

 joint is as usual very small; the second as usual long, and 

 the largest joint ; and that there is one cylindrical joint 

 between that and the terminal conical joint; this 

 means that there is only one joint to represent the 

 usual third and fourth joints. Claparede figures and 

 describes five joints ; Berlese says that what he calls 

 Tritia decmnana (I cannot agree with him that it is 

 Koch's decumana) has five joints to the palpus ; he does 

 not mention the number of joints in his other species, 

 but he figures five joints in all except H. dasypus (he 

 sometimes omits the small basal joints), amongst those 

 he so figures is H. anomala, a well-marked species. In 

 his ' Acarorum Systematis Specimen ' he says that 

 Hoplojohora has four. I have carefully examined my 

 dissections of all the British species, including nu- 

 merous specimens of the commoner species ; I find in 

 every instance that the palpus is exactly as described 

 by Nicolet, viz. four joints only. The species examined 

 by me include H. anomala, and also H. ard/ua, a species 

 closely allied to Berlese's decumana, inasmuch as it is 

 possessed of the tridactyle claw, and singularly-formed 

 genital and anal plates upon which he founded his 

 genus Tritia. The diff'erence seems probably to be 

 that Claparede and Berlese appear to consider the 

 terminal joint as divided into two near the middle, at 

 a place where there is a small shoulder bearing a hair. 

 It is not so divided in English specimens, so that either 

 the Swiss and Italian must differ from the French and 

 English in this respect, or else I think Claparede and 

 Berlese have fallen into some error in this respect. 

 Canestrini, in his ' Prospetto dell' Acarofauna Ital- 



