206 Oa Ttoj EnjUsh Mil(!jj''de.s. 



XXV. — On Two English Millipedes (lulus londinensis, Leach, 

 and lulus teutonicus, sp. «.), By R. I. PocoCK. 



luLVs LOXDiXEXsrs was oriu;iiially described in Trans. Linn. 

 Soc. Loud. xi. p. 378 (1815j, and redescribed and figured in 

 Zool. Misc. iii. p. 33, tig. 133 (1817). The type and two 

 other specimens are in the British Museum. 



Leach speaks of this species as occurring very commonly 

 amongst moss in woods near London, but unfortunately does 

 not say exactly where his specimens were actually collected — 

 unfortunately, because the species has never, to my knowledge, 

 been discovered since Leach's time either near London or in 

 any other locality at home or abroad. It is true that there is 

 an allied species, common in some parts of the south of 

 England and of Western Europe, which passes as londinensis 

 and has been more than once described under that name by 

 students of European Millipedes. English specimens of this 

 species taken in the vicinity of London have been compared 

 by Dr. Carl VerhoefF with continental examples, and pro- 

 nounced to be specifically identical with them. A comparison, 

 however, between examj)les of this species and Leach's 

 original examples of londinensis shows that the former has 

 been wrongly determined. It therefore requires a fresh name. 

 I propose to call it lulus teutonic us^ and to select as the type 

 an example taken by myself at Sevenoaks in Kent, 



Careful reading of Leach's description, brief as it is, of 

 /. londinensis shows that this species differs from /. teutonicus 

 in two important particulars. It is, in the first place, very 

 much larger, and, in the second place, has the caudal process 

 submucronate, the caudal process of /. teutonicus being in no 

 sense describable as mucronite. This discrepancy was 

 detected by Verhoeff (Berl. ent. Z^itsciir. xxxvi. p. 137, 1891), 

 who, however, passes it over as due to an error on Leach's 

 part. As a matter of fact. Leach was correct. 



Again, as to size. Leach states that his specimens were 

 2\ inches (that is to say, 58 raillim.) long. Meinert (Nat. 

 Tidssk, V. p. 8, 1868), on the contrary, gives 31 millim. an I 

 Verhoeff 38 millim. as the maximum siz^; of the species they 

 identified as /. londinensis, neither of them paying heed to 

 the dimensions given by Leach. In this case, tiovvever. Leach 

 seems to have exaggerated considerably, since all of his 

 specimens in the Bnti.sh Museum fall short of 2 inches long, 

 and this is about the length of the specimen represented in 

 the drawing in the ' Zoological Miscellany,' which purports 

 to have been taken from lite. It is of course possible that 



