from the Chinese Seas. 369 



? . Length 82 millim., width 8. 



^. Length 85 millim., width 6"3. 



Loc. Chusan Island {J. J. Walker, 2 ^J , 2 ? ) ; Da-laen- 

 Saen, 30 miles S.W. of Ningpo, 500-2500 feet alt. {J. J. 

 Walker, 1 ? ). 



The example from the latter locality has fifty-six pairs of 

 legs, but otherwise does not appear to differ from those that 

 were taken at Chusan Island. 



This species is evidently nearly allied to S. exquisitus of 

 Karsch (Zeitschr. Naturwissen. (3) vi. p. 57) from Pekin ; but 

 Karsch says of the latter : " annulis profande segmentatisj^ 

 and asserts that the pores are situated " ante sulciim sat pro- 

 fundum longitudinalem partis posticce.'''' 



In 8. Walkeri, however, there is only sometimes a trace of 

 this latter sulcus, and the transverse sulcus, which Karsch 

 describes as profound, is entirely obsolete dorsally and very 

 weak at the sides. 



Spiroholus Bungii of Brandt, also from Pekin, may be 

 identical either with exquisitus or Walkeri. In fact, were it 

 not for the difference of locality, I should scarcely have felt 

 justified in describing Walkeri as distinct from Bungii. 



Supplementary Note upon Herr Verhoeff^s Subdivisions 

 of the so-called Genus lulus. 



I feel that I cannot altogether pass over the genus lulus 

 without commenting upon a revision of the group that Herr 

 VerhoefF has recently proposed (Zool. Anz.xvi.p.479 &c., 1893; 

 and Verb. z.-b. Ges. Wien, 1894, pt. ii. p. 137, &c., 1894). 

 The anatomical part of this work is, it seems to me, worthy 

 of all praise ; and I cannot but congratulate the author upon 

 the industry and perseverance he has shown in elucidating 

 many points of morphological importance. But his supreme 

 disregard for, or entire ignorance of, the fundamental principles 

 of zoological nomenclature is certainly astonishing. It has 

 resulted, moreover, in the creation of an immense amount of 

 wholly unnecessary confusion, the unravelling of which will 

 prove to be a task of no small difficulty. I have here taken 

 upon myself to attempt to correct some of the more glaring 

 errors, in order that they may penetrate no further into litera- 

 ture. Firstly, however, to avoid ambiguity, I venture to lay 

 down the following propositions, which, I take it, will be 

 generally admitted by most thoughtful systematic workers : — 



A genus must contain one of the species originally referred 



