378 Mr. R. I. Pocock on South-African Scorpions. 



further back in a Transvaal example of L. vittatus than in 

 the Somaliland form L. Fischeri, A variation of this for- 

 mula is seen in occidentalism where the inner teeth occupy 

 almost the same position as in Fischeri^ but in the distal third 

 of the digit the apical tooth of the median series becomes a 

 little enlarged and slightly separated from the rest, and forms 

 with the adjacent tooth of the inner set a pair of teeth. It is 

 upon this character in this species that Kraepelin has based 

 his genus Tityolepreus. 



A fourth arrangement is found in such species as chloro- 

 dermus and triangulifer ^ Thor., which are usually referred 

 to the genus Uroplectes. In these the disposition of the 

 teeth is only a little different from what is seen in occi- 

 dentalis {chincJwxensis) , the inner teeth at the proximal end 

 of the digit being isolated and removed to some distance from 

 the apices of the median rows, though in the distal two thirds 

 of the digit they approach the median series and are paired 

 with the slightly enlarged and separated apical teeth. The 

 disposition, however, in the two species named is not identical, 

 and in the closely allied species U. olivaceus^ here described 

 as new, yet a third variation is presented, the internal teeth 

 being much closer to the ends of the median rows at the 

 proximal end of the digit than in the other two. 



And, lastly, there is a fifth arrangement exhibited by such 

 species as lineatus, Koch, and formosus, Poc, in which the 

 inner teeth are close to the apices of the median rows, forming 

 with the two enlarged and separated terminal teeth of these 

 rows a recurved series. 



Trusting to these data, it seems to me to be logical to 

 follow Kraepelin, refusing to recognize the three genera 

 LepreuSj TityolepreuSj and Uroplectes^ as established, since 

 there are no fewer than jive dental formulae presented by the 

 known species of this section, and the formula varies in closely 

 allied species. 



It seems, therefore, that if we adopt the system of splitting 

 the species into several genera according to dentition of the 

 digits, consistency will compel us to recognize no fewer than 

 Jive, I prefer, however, to adopt the alternative hypothesis of 

 referring all the species to a single genus Uroplectes, since, in 

 the first place, in addition to the considerations mentioned 

 above, we do not know the dental formula of U. ornatus, Pet., 

 the type of the genus Uroplectes, whether it be like that of 

 lineatus or like that of triangulifer , and consequently cannot 

 say to which section of the species the name should be applied ; 

 nor do we know with exactness that of the species named 

 pilosuSf Thor., vtjimbinguensis, Karsch, lunulifer, Sim., and 



