94 Mr. E, I. Pocock on the 



presented by tliese organs. The length of tlie largest 

 specimen is 64 millim. and the width 5, and in an example 

 preserved in alcohol, measuring 61 millim., the width is 

 just under 5. The width is thus more than one thirteenth 

 of the length, whereas in the examples oi multicostis mentioned 

 above the width is about one sixteenth of the length, so that, 

 even making due allowance for variation in this respect 

 owing to longitudinal shrinkage, it may be said that on the 

 whole crotalus is stouter tlian vmlticostis. A further distinc- 

 tion seems to be found in the sculpturing of the terga, the 

 sutural crests being much stronger as compared with the one 

 in the middle line in crotalus. The colour, too, of the 

 specimens of crotalus is less green, being rather of a deep 

 pinkish brown. I do not, however, find that the features 

 mentioned by Lucas to distinguish Grandidieri from crotalus 

 hold good. The impressions or spots on the first tergite, for 

 example, are scarcely distinguishable, and the excavation of 

 the inner surface of the patella of the anal leg is attributable 

 to drying. In one example, for instance, the excavation is 

 present on one leg but not on the other. It is, however, by 

 the anal leg, which sometimes exceeds the length of the poste- 

 rior seven body-segments, that crotalus may be most readily 

 distinguished from multicosfis. In the former the two expan- 

 sions of the tibia are smaller and rise further back, but the 

 distance between the terminal points is nearly equal to the 

 median length of the segments. The protarsal and tarsal 

 laminas are, on the other hand, larger than in multicostis, the 

 tarsus being nearly as high as it is long. The latter is often 

 armed at the tip with a minute claw (tig. b, p. 96). 



AUpes Grandidieri (Luc). 



Evcorybas Grandidieri, Lucas, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. (4) iv. p. 420 (18G4) ; 

 id. op. cit. (o) i. pp. 448-451, pi. vii. figs. 1-7 (1871). 



This species, recorded originally from Zanzibar, appears to 

 me to be quite distinct, as Lucas surmised and otiier authors 

 seemingly admit, from the Natal form crotalus of Gerstaecker. 

 Apart from the other differential characters pointed out by 

 Lucas, the relatively small size of the laminate expansions on 

 the anal legs are sufficiently diagnostic. So, too, does it 

 seem to me, in spite of the contrary opinion advocated by both 

 Gerstaecker (Von der Decken's ' Reisen in Ost-Afrika,' iii. 

 2, p. 524) and von Porat (Bih. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Handl. xx. 

 pt. ii. no. 5, p. 15), that Grandidieri must also be regarded 

 as distinct from the West-African species multicostis, Imlioff, 

 the figure of which, judging from specimens in the British 



