8o MYRIAPODA chap, ii 



which this manuscript is written is as yet imperfect, still we 

 hope that constant study may teach us more and more, and 

 enable us to read the great book of nature with more and more 

 ease and certainty. 



If any of my readers should wish for a more full account of 

 the natural history of this group I must refer them to the 

 following works, which I have used in compiling the above 

 account. In the first of these there is an excellent bibliography 

 of the subject : 



Latzel, Die Myriapoden der Oesterreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, Wien, 



1880. 

 Zittel, HandbucTi der Palaeontologie, 1 Abtli, II. Bd., Leipzig, 1881-1885. 

 Korschelt and Heider, Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Entwicklungsgeschiclite 



der wirbellosen Thiere, Jena 1891. 



Some later work of Scudder on Palaeontology must be mentioned. He 

 establishes a family Gerascutigeridae, with a genus Latzelia. Also a family 

 Eoscolopendridae in which lie includes Eileticus, also a genus Palenarthrus 

 in which is placed a scolojjendriform Chilopod. A new genus Ilyodes also 

 chilopodifcfrm. Amylispes, he thinks, may be allied to Glomeridae. Trichi- 

 julus must be given up. A new species of Acantherpestes. More species of 

 Euphoheria. 2 new species of Xylohius were discovered in coal. 



Pocock divides the Diplopoda into 3 orders : Oniscomorpha, with families 

 Glomeridae and Zephroniidae ; Helminthomorpha, with suborders Juloidea, 

 Chordeumoidea, Polydesmoidea ; and Limacomorpha, with family Glomeri- 

 desmidae. 



The systematic position of Symphyla and Pauropoda has been the subject 

 of much discussion. Pocock places Symphyla in a Class and Kenyon places 

 Pauropoda in a Suborder. 



Many naturalists believe that Chilopoda should be united with Hexapoda. 

 There is no room for a discussion of the point, but I must refer my readers 

 to Pocock, Zool. Anzeiger, xvi. 1893, p. 271 ; Kingsley, Tufts Coll. Studies, 

 No. 1, 1894, p. 15; Bollmsm; Bull U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 46, 1893, where 

 they will find the arguments for this view. 



For further information on Pauropoda and Symphyla, see P. Schmidt^ 

 Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lix., 1895, p. 436; Kenyon, Tufts Coll. Studies, No. 4^ 

 1895, p. 77. 



