Bibliographical Notices. 301 
logist ought to have seen even without reference to the explanation. 
There is consequently not the slightest vestige of the alleged con- 
fusion on Schiddte’s part; and the Latin description of S. tenaria 
comprises evidently both sexes, which, apart from the ordinary sexual 
differences expressly referred to, are exactly alike. Nor can there 
be much doubt, if Count Keyserling’s description be correct, that his 
specimens from Lessina belong not to S. tenaria as he thinks, but to a 
new and different species. Count Keyserling’s new account of Stalta 
is therefore only calculated to create considerable confusion ; and his 
considerations on the relations of Stalita to other genera are not 
without grave errors. He says, for instance, that Stalita differs from 
Dysdera by having three foot-claws, and by the palpi of the female 
terminating in a claw. But neither Stalita nor any other genus of 
Arthropoda has really three claws, though the claw-shaped onychium 
may give it such an appearance at first sight, as remarked by Schiddte 
in his first memoir; in Dysdera the onychium is soft, round, and 
hairy. Nor does the female Dysdera lack a terminal claw on its 
palpi, though Count Keyserling may have overlooked it. The last- 
named author also mentions as remarkable that the patellz are much 
elongated in Stalita, the fact being, however, on the contrary, that, 
whilst all the other parts of the limbs are much elongated in Stalita, 
the patellz do not participate in this modification, but remain com- 
paratively short; and it is by way of showing the reason of this 
circumstance that Prof. Schiddte enters upon the general considera- 
tions above quoted. 
The family of Geophili is easily distinguished from the other fami- 
lies of Chilopoda; but, although there is in reality no lack of good 
distinctive characters for genera and species, the attempts hitherto 
made at a natural classification of its contents have not been suc- 
cessful; and the authors of the paper on Danish Geophili (iv. p. 81), 
Dr. Meinert and Dr. Bergsée, have been able to suggest very con- 
siderable improvements. We refer for details to their Latin diagnoses ; 
but some general remarks may not be unacceptable. They derive 
good systematic characters not only from the organs of the mouth 
(with regard to which they follow Savigny’s nomenclature), but also 
from the composition of the head. For species living more on the 
surface, firmer and more completely chitinized integuments are ne- 
eessary than for those which are constantly hidden under stones, 
fallen leaves, &c.: accordingly it is found that in some the skull 
consists of one piece only, but in others it is divided into two pieces, 
a crown piece and a smaller front piece. Generally the posterior 
margin of the skull reaches the tergum of that segment which car- 
ries the second pair of maxillary feet.(segmentum basilare, Newport), 
and even covers the anterior margin of that segment; so that the 
tergum of the intervening segment, which carries the first pair of 
maxillary feet, is entirely hidden from view. But in Scolioplanes, 
a new genus, this generally hidden segment is quite free, and its 
tergum even divided into two plates more or less widely distant 
from one another. The number of the legs is a useful character, 
though it varies within certain limits. In males the average num- 
