a Fnniily o/Tbysanura. 377 



Campodea fragilis, n. sp. 



Nivea (vel lutea), densius pilosa. 



Caput seque longum ac latum. 



Antennae longitudinem corporis dimidiam paululura superantes, 

 ssepissime 18-20-artieulat8e, articulo pEenultimo brevi, ultimo 

 longo, ssepissime articulos duos vel tres psenultimos longitu- 

 dine sequante. 



Cerci fere longitudine abdominis, 11-14-articulati. 



Long. 5 "5 miHim. 



As in tbe case of Jajnjx solifugus, the specific characters are 

 chosen almost at random ; for although several species of Cam- 

 podea have been described, they have not yet been properly 

 compared with each other. The synonymy is consequently 

 altogether vacillating. If the descriptions and figures given by 

 the different authors are correct, our species must be new. 

 From C. staphylinus, Westw. (Trans. Entom. Soc. vol. iii. p. 231, 

 pi. 8) ours would differ by much longer and slenderer cerci and 

 antennfe, and by the different ratio of the lengths of the last 

 the penultimate joints of the antennse. Besides, Westwood de- 

 scribes the tarsus as articulated ; but that the abdomen is figured 

 with only nine rings is, of course, a mere oversight. Gervais^s 

 C. staphylinus (in Walckenaer, Hist. Nat. des Apteres, iii. p. 455, 

 pi. 51) differs from our species by having the last abdomen-ring 

 only one-thii'd the size of the preceding one (whilst in our spe- 

 cies they are of equal size), by having much longer and more 

 attenuated cerci with many more joints, and by a proportionally 

 narrower and more pointed forehead. 



Nicolet^s Campodea staphylinus is, like Westwood^ s, described 

 as having biarticulate tarsi; it is stated, moreover, to possess 

 eyes, and a peculiar rudimentary appendage on the back of the 

 ninth ring — all of which, if really correct, of course would dis- 

 tinguish it specifically from C. fragilis, which, besides, has much 

 slenderer and less robust body and appendages. Nicolet's C. 

 succinea seems so little different from his C. staphylinus that it 

 also cannot be identical with our species. 



0. r. Miiller^s Lepisma aptera flava (Zool. Danicse Prodrom. 

 p. 183. n. 2160) may be the same as our Campodea ; but as it 

 may as well be some other apterous species, 1 have not thought 

 fit to revive his specific name ; and, for the same reason, I think 

 it unsafe to attempt to carry our synonymy back to such old 

 publications. Haliday has referred to Podura ambulans, L. ; 

 but this cannot have been a Campodea : if Linnseus had known 

 the Campodea, he would have classed it with Lepisma or Myria- 

 poda, but he would certainly not, as he does with regard to his 

 Podura ambulans, first have placed it amongst Pediculi and then 



