4(;t> T\c.i: sKodsiii'Mtc 



that is. Imwcvcr. iliivctlv contriidictiMl In tlir ilncc timircs oi' tlic Iciimli' (iisl ;inlcnii;i ix'wvn 

 bv those \vrittM*s. pi. L. figs. '^ imd S. ])1. I. IX, lig. 11>. In <>nr limirc ol the male lirst aiilcim;!, 

 pi. L. fig. 2. the a-claw is drawn as if it issues IVdiii the next to the tlistal joint. In pi. L, 

 fig. 8 no less than four bristles is.sue distally on the sixth joint. — J. A. ClsiiMAN, who is the 

 onlv author besides G. W. Mt'LLEi; who has recently given re])roductions of this liml), also 

 makes mistakes with regard to the position of tlie end l)ristles; ef. 1!H)6, pi. 29. 



I have found the conditions with regard to the number of joints on the f(!raale first 

 antenna to be very clear in all the species I have investigated. As will be seen from the infor- 

 mation given above, I foimd six or seven joints, according to whether the third and fourth 

 joints were free or were united to each other. Previous writers have, on the whole, given quite 

 correct information with regard to this. The only important remark that can be made is that 

 some of them have been too quick to generalize; they have adopted in their genus diagnoses what 

 they discovered in the few species they were able to investigate. Thus G. (). Sars, 1887, j). 18 

 states in his genus diagnosis that the female first antenna always has six joints. — G. W. Mf'M.i-^K 

 writes, 1894, p. 217, that the first antenna is ,,6- oder 7-gliedrig, beim 9 Glied 7+8 oder 5 + 6, 

 7+8, oder auch 6+7+8 verschmolzen". But, to judge from pi. 4, figs. 14 and 30, the 

 latter part of this statement ,,oder 5+6, 7+8, etc." refers to forms that turned out later 

 not to belong to this genus. — G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman, 1896, do not include the number 

 of joints in their genus diagnosis; in the descriptions of the species, on the other hand, they 

 give quite correct information about it. 



The number and boundaries of the joints on the male first antenna is, on the other hand, 

 very difficult to ascertain with certainty. And the statements of previous authors on these 

 points vary considerably. No quite correct information seems to have been given so far. 



G. 0. Sars states, 1887, p. 18 that the male first antenna has eight joints, as the third 

 and fifth joints of the female have each in the male been divided into two joints by an oblique 

 suture. This author takes as the eighth joint a small part on which are situated the four end 

 bristles that are furnished witli sensorial filaments, a part that would be homologous with the 

 small end joint in the female. — According to G. W. Mullp.r, 1894, p. 217 are ,,beim cJ (stets?) 

 5+6 verschmolzen, die iibrigen Gli<!der getrennt". In other words the male first antenna 

 would have seven joints, with the original seventh and eighth joints free. The end joint, i. e. 

 the original eighth joint, is relatively large and has all the seven distal bristles on it; cf. pi. 4, 

 fig. 15. Information contrary to this exposition is given in the same work, p. 23; it is there 

 stated in the table that the male first antenna has seven joints, with the fourth and fifth joints 

 joined together. — In G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman we find direct information as to the 

 number of joints in the male first antenna only in tlie description of one species, A. Mariae. 

 This species is said, p. 632, to have six joints in its first antenna. The text shows that these 

 writers take the fourth and fifth joints as one joint, as the sensory bristle of the fifth joint is 

 given, p. 633, as being on the fourth joint ,, fourth joint .... at the extremity below, a very 

 large sensory organ". The accompanying figure, pi. L. fig. 2, shows, however, seven distinct 

 joints, the fourth and fifth joints are well divided; all the end bristles issue from the moderately 

 large end joint except the a-claw, which is attached antero-distally on the next to the distal 



