Long-forgotten British Lithobius. 3G9 



the British Museum, scon dispelled this illusion. For three 

 points speedily came to light: — Firstly, that the specimen ia 

 specifically identical with the type of L. inlicornis ; secondly, 

 that Z. Sloanei is synonymous with L. pilicornis ; and 

 thirdly, that the species has been redescribed by von Porath 

 and has received the appropriate name longipes as a secondary 

 title. 



The types of longipes were from the Azores, and the species 

 was established in 1870. Two years later Dr. Meinert 

 obtained a LitJiohius from Madeira which he questionably 

 identified as longipes. But to afford others an opportunity of 

 testing the correctness of his conclusion, he recharacterized 

 the species from the Madeiran example. If this description 

 be compared with that given by von Porath certain differences 

 between the two may be noticed — differences which, although 

 slight in themselves, are perhaps in the aggregate of sufficient 

 importance to justify the caution Dr. Meinert displayed in 

 qualifying his synonymy with a mark of interrogation. I con- 

 fess, however, to having come to the conclusion that these 

 differences might easily be accounted for on the grounds of 

 individual variation. I was consequently somewhat surprised 

 to find upon consulting Dr. Meinert's last work on the Ohilo- 

 poda that he subsequently comes to an opinion exactly the 

 opposite of my own. For in this instance he identifies a 

 specimen from Marocco as longipes of Porath, and, deciding 

 that it is specifically distinct from his previously described 

 Madeiran specimen, he assigns to this last the new name 

 galathece. Fortunately, however, by drawing up a diagnosis 

 of the Moorish example he again furnishes us with a means 

 of keeping a check upon his determination and of testing the 

 validity of his views. But here again it is hard quite to agree 

 with Dr. Meinert. It seems to me that this third description by 

 no means serves to emphasize the distinction between the 

 so-called galathece and longipes. On the contrary, it confirms 

 me in the belief that the Madeiran and Azorean specimens are 

 co-specific ; and there is no doubt whatever that Dr. Meinert 

 has correctly identified the specimen from Marocco. Hence 

 the three descriptions have been drawn up from specimens 

 which are specifically identical. Clearly, however, such an 

 expression of personal conviction will carry but little weight 

 if unsupported by facts ; and it is desirable to be somewhat 

 more explicit, since this view is opposed to that of Dr. Meinert, 

 whose opinion on such a point is worthy of most cai-eful con- 

 sideration — and this quite apart from the circumstance that 

 his conclusion is so much the more valuable inasmuch as it was 

 formed from a comparison of specimens. 



