a Family of Thysanura, 377 
Campodea fragilis, n. sp. 
Nivea (vel lutea), densius pilosa. 
Caput zque longum ac latum. 
Antenne longitudinem corporis dimidiam paululum superantes, 
seepissime 18—20-articulate, articulo pznultimo brevi, ultimo 
longo, szepissime articulos duos vel tres penultimos longitu- 
dine zquante. 
Cerci fere longitudine abdominis, 11—14-articulati. 
Long. 5°5 millim. 
As in the case of Japyz solifugus, the specific characters are 
chosen almost at random; for although several species of Cam- 
podea have been described, they have not yet been properly 
compared with each other. The synonymy is consequently 
altogether vacillating. If the descriptions and figures given by 
the different authors are correct, our species must be new. 
From C. staphylinus, Westw. (Trans. Entom. Soe. vol. iii. p. 231, 
pl. 8) ours would differ by much longer and slenderer cerci and 
antenne, and by the different ratio of the lengths of the last 
the penultimate joints of the antenne. Besides, Westwood de- 
scribes the tarsus as articulated ; but that the abdomen is figured 
with only nine rings is, of course, a mere oversight. Gervais’s 
C. staphylinus (in Walckenaer, Hist. Nat. des Aptéres, iii. p. 455, 
pl. 51) differs from our species by having the last abdomen-ring 
only one-third the size of the preceding one (whilst in our spe- 
cies they are of equal size), by having much longer and more 
attenuated cerci with many more joints, and by a proportionally 
narrower and more pointed forehead. 
Nicolet’s Campodea staphylinus is, like Westwood’s, described 
as having biarticulate tarsi; it is stated, moreover, to possess 
eyes, and a peculiar rudimentary appendage on the back of the 
ninth ring—all of which, if really correct, of course would dis- 
tinguish it specifically from C. fragilis, which, besides, has much 
slenderer and less robust body and appendages. Nicolet’s C. 
succinea seems so little different from his C. staphylinus that it 
also cannot be identical with our species. 
O. F. Miiller’s Lepisma aptera flava (Zool. Danice Prodrom. 
p. 183. n. 2160) may be the same as our Campodea; but as it 
may as well be some other apterous species, 1 have not thought 
fit to revive his specific name ; and, for the same reason, I think 
it unsafe to attempt to carry our synonymy back to such old 
publications. WHaliday has referred to Podura ambulans, L. ; 
but this cannot have been a Campodea: if Linneus had known 
the Campodea, he would have classed it with Lepisma or Myria- 
poda, but he would certainly not, as he does with regard to his 
Podura ambulans, first have placed it amongst Pediculi and then 
