54 Mr. R. I. Pocock on neio 



Prof. "Westwood, to examine the type of Cormocephalus 

 Guildinyii, which is preserved in the Hope Museum at 

 Oxford. 1 at once recognized that the species is referable to 

 the genus Cujnpes^ and moreover that, misled bj the absence 

 of the anal legs, I had redescribed a specimen of it as a new 

 species, Otostigma cormocephalinum. 



On Otostigma spinlcauda {Newport). 



Branchiostoma spinicuuda, Newport, Trans. Linn. Soc. xix. p. 412, 



pi. xl. fig. 7 (1845). 

 Otostigma desey-ti, Msinert, Vid. Medd. Nat. Forening, 1884-86, p. 121. 



An examination of Newport's type of this species shows 

 that it is not referable to the genus BrancJdostoma, or Rhysida 

 as it should be called, inasmuch as there are no spiracles in 

 the seventh somite. It is in fact a veritable Otostigma, 

 having the ear-shaped stigmata, spurred tarsi, produced 

 pleura^, and simple, not sulcate, head-plate which are so charac- 

 teristic of the genus. 



Ot. deserti of Meinert, from Biskra, is, I feel confident, the 

 same species, the only difference that I can detect being the 

 presence of two spines on the under surface of tiie femur of 

 the anal leg in Ot. deserti, whereas in specimens of Ot. spini- 

 cauda from Tripoli there are either three or four spines in this 

 position. Analogy, however, justifies the conclusion that this 

 character cannot be regarded as of specific importance. 



On Monops nigra [Newport). 



Cryptops nigra, Newport, Trans. Linn. Soc. xix. p. 408. 

 Monojjs 7iigra, Gervais, Ins. Apt. iv. p. 294. 



Newport described this species from a figure on pi. xc. of 

 the unpublished drawings by Major-General Hardwicke of the 

 Spiders (and Myriopods) of India. Consequently Gervais's 

 assertion that the typical specimen is preserved in the British 

 Museun is erroneous. There is no type, unless the figure be 

 regarded as such. 



It is difficult to conceive why Newport should have regarded 

 that figure as representing a Cryptops. There is little or 

 nothing of a CryjJtops about it. It is quite true that in the 

 rough drawing that is given of the under surface of the head 

 no prosternal plates are re))resented ; but the form of the 

 maxillary feet is so totally unlike anything known in the 

 Chilopoda — the appendage being figured as a single stout 

 internally serrate tooth — that no reliance is to be placed upon 

 this drawing. Again, with regard to the eyes : Newport quite 



