Rey. 8. Graham Brade-Birks on Myrtapoda, 161 
Verhoeff. However, Wood’s name ceruleocinctus must re- 
place tewlonicus, having the priority by many years.” With 
this the writer agrees, and, until it is shown conclusively that 
Cylindroiulus is a synonym of Diploiulus, it would seem that 
for this form we must use the name Cylindrovulus londinensis, 
var. ceruleocinctus (Wood). 
Cylindroiulus owent (Bollman, 1887) 
= C. frisius (Verhoeff, 1891). 
Chamberlin speaks of a form he calls Diplovulus luscus 
(Meinert). here is no doubt that the animal known to 
Chamberlin under this name is Zulus fristus, Verhoeff, 1891, 
for Chamberlin finds that ‘ Comparison of American speci- 
mens with some from Holland shows complete agreement in 
the gonopods of the male.” Jn litt. Chamberlin explains to 
me why he calls this species luscus (Meinert). ‘ Probably,” 
he says, “I have been influenced in using Meinert’s name 
luscus by the fact that specimens sent me many years ago by 
Dr. Meinert under the name are the same species as owen, 
etc.” 
In his paper Chamberlin gives the following synonymy :—_ 
“1868, Julus luscus Meinert, Naturh. Tidsskr., 3 R., V, p. 9. 
1887. Julus owentt Bollman, Entom. Amer., 11, p. 228. 
1891. Julus frisius Verhoett, Berl. Ent. Zeits., xxxvi, Hft. 1, p. 183, 
pl. 6, figs. 17-21. 
1914. Julus hesperus Chamberlin, Canad. Ent., p. 314.” 
He also states, “ here seems little doubt that this is the 
true /uscus of Meinert; but if luscws is held to be indeter- 
minable with certainty, then oweni2 must take precedence 
over frisius.” The writer agrees, and until further evidence 
is forthcoming proposes to use the name owent, as it appears 
at the head of this section. 
Brachyiulus pusillus (Leach, 1814). 
Chamberlin says, “‘lhis species is sometimes placed by 
European workers in a subgenus Microbrachyiulus ; but as it 
is the type of Brachyiulus any genus or subgenus in which 
it is included must bear this name.’ Consequently we must 
cease to use the subgeneric appellation in the case of this 
animal. 
Ophytulus pilosus (Newport, 1842). 
For this form Chamberlin uses the name Uphiulus longabo 
(C. Koch). From what has been said by Bidlemann (1919), 
Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 9. Vol. ix. a! 
