167 
‘Thorell describes 1888 (op. cit. p. 370—82) a species 
from Java as Th. caudatus Linné (»Non dubito, quin 
sit species ...... nomine Linneano caudati potissi- 
mum vocanda) and makes good this assertion (p. 377— 
78), but is*doubtiul if this species is the 
same as the one described by Lucas; most 
likely the species of Lucas cannot with certainty be 
recognized except by means of the original specimens. 
The next year Tarnani believes that a West-Indian 
species from Haiti shall answer to the name of Th. 
caudatus L., while he gives the name of 7. Thorelli 
to the species described by Thorell. I should not at 
all have entered into all these synonymical difficulties, 
if it had not been of the greatest importance to be quite 
sure of which species Gaubert has examined. The fact 
is that his statements on the lyriform organs very badly 
agree with my results from the study of Th. indieus 
Stol., and under a magnifying-glass I have been able 
to discover the largest of the organs found in Th. 
indicus on the real Th. caudatus (L.) Thor. from Java, 
viz., the fissures on the posterior and dorsal side of 
the 2d joint of the legs, on the anterior side of the 3d 
joint and the transverse fissure across the dorsal side 
of the 4th joint, thence I suppose that Th. caudatus 
(L.) Thor. does not to any considerable extent differ 
from Th. indicus. Considering the 2 preceding and 
several of the following orders I shall not lay any stress 
on that Gaubert has not found the numerous fissures 
on the body, as well as on the mandibles and maxillary 
palpi, but he has not either found any of the organs 
at the apex of the joints of the legs, and he expressly 
remarks (p. 86): »les fentes se trouvent sur les cing 
premiers articles des pattes (Pl. IV, fig. 4)... . elles 
sont disposées au hasard tout en étant paralleles a 
laxe des articles et sans ordre determiné.« And later 
