chap, v.] HOMCEOSIS IN ARTHROPOD A. 147 



This specimen was most kindly lent to me for examination by 

 Dr Kraatz, but to this description I am unable to add anything 1 . 



HE 



^V^ 



Fig. 16. Cimbex axillaris: right antenna normal; left antenna bearing a foot. 

 II. the left antenna seen from in front. III. the same from above. After Kraatz. 



It should be noted that the plantar surface of the foot was turned 

 rather forwards as shewn in the figure, and not downwards like 

 the normal feet. 

 *76. Bombus variabilis J 1 (a Humble-bee). A specimen taken 

 beside the hedge of a park in Munich, having the left antenna 

 partially developed as a foot. The first two joints were normal. 

 They were followed by two joints which were rather compressed 

 and increased in thickness and breadth. Of these the first was 

 oblong and somewhat narrowed towards its apex by two shallow 

 constrictions, giving it an appearance as of three joints united 

 into one ; below it presented a projecting and tooth-like point. 

 This joint was only slightly shiny. The next joint to it was al- 

 most triangular, and was reddish-brown, shiny, and having hairs 

 on its lower surface. Posteriorly it was prolonged inwards, cover- 

 ing the previous joint so that both seemed to form one joint : 

 the posterior edge was somewhat thickly covered with hairs. The 

 upper part of the first of these two joints and the prolongation 

 of the second were together covered by a hairy, scale-like third 

 joint, which seemed to be only attached at its base. From the 

 apex of the second joint arose a shortened claw-joint, like the claw- 

 joint of a normal foot. This joint was reddish-brown and shiny, 

 bearing a pair of regularly formed claws, like the claws of the 

 foot. Kriechbaumer, Entom. Nadir., 1889, xv. No. 18, p. -281. 



1 Some to whom I have spoken of this specimen, being unfamiliar with entomo- 

 logical literature, and thus unaware of the high reputation of Dr Kraatz among ento- 

 mologists, have expressed doubt as to its genuineness. I may add therefore that 

 the specimen, when in Cambridge, was illuminated as an opaque object and submit- 

 ted to most careful microscopical examination both by Dr D. Sharp, F.R.S., and 

 myself, and not the slightest reason was found for supposing that it was other than 

 perfectly natural and genuine. The specimen was also carefully relaxed and washed 

 with warm water, but no part of it was detached by this treatment. 



10—2 



