230 U. I. POCOCK. 



ending in two fan-shaped apophyses similar to those of 

 Palamnaeus, but stouter. 



These characteristics are illustrated in tlie figure of the 

 entosternite of Centruroides margaritatus (PI. 14, 

 fig. 24), which may be taken as fairly typical of the ento- 

 sternite of Buthi<la3 in general. 



Schimkewitsch (10) gives a figure of the entosternite of 

 Androctonns bicolor, which is quite unlike this plate in 

 any member of the Buthidfe I have examined. Presumably 

 the form he names A. bicolor is the thick-tailed, dark- 

 coloured species from Transcaspia whicli Obvier called 

 crassicauda. In examples of this species the entosternite 

 closely resembles that of Centruroides margaritatus 

 (see PI. 14, fig. 24), having the same norrow median longi- 

 tudinal ridge and large lateral crests and the same narrow, 

 nay, even narrower bar, with broad, fan-shaped apophyses 

 running forwards from the subncural arch. Yet Schimke- 

 witsch represents the supra-neural ai ch as a transversely 

 oblong plate as wide in proportion to its length as in Hadru- 

 roides, furnished with lobate lateral projections, and a ver}^ 

 broad subneural process with unexpanding apophyses. An 

 entosternite of this description should belong to some species 

 with a broad and short pentagonal entosternite. 



Speaking of tlie entosternite of the scorpions, Bernard 

 (3) says that its points of attachment " to its parent 

 cuticle correspond with the points of origin of the ento- 

 sternite of Galeodes," — that is to sa}-, to the integument 

 immediately above the preaxial surface of the coxa of the 

 fourth prosomatic appendage, or, as he elsewhere (4) ex- 

 presses it, between the third and fourth segments. In 

 Palamnacus thorelli, the species examined by Bernard, T 

 find that the anterior bar of the entosternite has a fibro- 

 miiscular attachment to the in-projecting anterior rim of the 

 coxa of the fourth ap]iendage (second leg). But 1 could not 

 satisfy myself that there was any union with tlie adjacent 

 integument, — certainly there was none such as to justify the 

 speaking of the integument as the '^ parent" of this bar 



