30 DERMAPTERA FROM JAVA. 
I am unable to separate the two forms in any respect 
beyond the form of the pygidium in the male, and the 
only way out of the difficulty, which I can see, is to ad- 
mit dimorphism in the male pygidium. 
Perhaps it is this creature which is described by de 
Bormans as Ch. laetior (Tierreich, Forf. p. 87, 1900), as 
his account of the female pygidium agrees with this species 
rather better than with the description of Dohrn, who 
only knew the female. Dohrn’s type I have not yet seen. 
23. Hamazxas semiluteus Borm. 
Wonosobo: May 1909, 1 9. 
Family 3. Forficulidae. 
Subfamily 1. Opisthocosmiinae. 
24, Eparchus forcipatus Haan. 
Pangerango: Oct. 1908, 1 Q. 
25. Eparchus sp. 
Wonosobo: April and May, 399. 
This does not appear to be the female of W, tenellus 
and may very likely be new, but it is necessary to see the male. 
26. Eparchus tenellus Haan. 
Semarang: Dec. 1910, 19. 
27. ? Eparchus sp. n. 
Wonosobo: May 1910, 1°. 
Without the male, this species is indeterminable: it is 
very likely new. 
Dover, October 1911. 
Notes from the Leyden Museum, Vol. XXXIV. 
