the Classification o/Oribatidte. 3? 



Dr. Oudemans accuses Nicolet of " bungling " over tlie 

 genus ^^Cepheus " : what lie did is certainly singular, but the 

 result has to be considered. Dr. Oudemans says, " The 

 name Cepheus, Kicolet, 1855, cannot be kept, as Koch used 

 this name in 1836." This is quite true, but we do not attempt 

 to preserve any genus Cepheus of Nicolet, nor did Nicolet 

 propose to found any ; we preserve Koch's. It is true that 

 Nicolet divided Koch's genus and carried, or rather thought 

 he carried, Koch's Cepheus latus to a new genus and called 

 the creature Tegeocranus cepheiformis, which he described 

 and figured excellently. It was certainly an odd proceeding ; 

 but, as I pointed out in my ' British Oribatidee,' vol. ii. 1888, 

 p. SiO, although Nicolet thought that his species was the 

 same, he was in error : T. cepheiformis was a new species, and 

 Cepheus latus, Koch, was probably a synonym either of what 

 is now called Tegeocranus latus, endeavouring to preserve 

 Koch's specific name, or of Cepheus tegeocranus (Hermann), 

 an earlier species. Nicolet named a new species Cepheus 

 latus, which was very injudicious: but Koch's definition of the 

 genus Cepheus is no description at all, and would not define 

 any group whatever, and his type species is uncertain; it is 

 therefore better to adopt Nicolet's clear definition of the 

 genus, and some zoologists would call it '•' Cepheus, Nicolet." 

 As the facts stand, therefore, it would seem that Nicolet's 

 species may be good, particularly if the notes to rule 14 of 

 the rules for the scientific naming of animals of the German 

 Zoological Society be right. But Cepheus latus, Nic, is so 

 like Cepheus tegeocranus (Herm.), that Koch would not have 

 been likely to note the difference ; thus Cepheus latus, Koch 

 and Nicolet, may after all be identical, although Nicolet 

 thought them different. It would be impossible to say for 

 certain from Koch's description and figure. 



Dr. Oudemans, like many other acarologists, suggests that 

 the genus Bella, founded by Heyden, should take the place 

 of the later genus Damoius, Koch. Belha was founded on 

 Notaspis corynopus Hermann, as a type : Dr. Oudemans 

 says, " I do not know this species by my own observation." 

 Everyone else is in the same position, because probably no 

 such creature as Hermann has figured and very shortly de- 

 scribed ever existed ; if it did it was not a member of any 

 known genus of Oribatidag, for it is described as having 

 chelate tarsi. Hermann doubtless made some mistake ; but 

 if this error were eliminated the creature, if it were then a 

 possible one, which is doubtful, would belong to the genus 

 Notaspis rather than Damccus. Heyden, however, was not 

 satisfied with the type ; he defined the genus Belba, and his 

 definition would carry it out of the Acariua altogether, if 



