302 Bibliographical Notices. 
ber of pairs of legs is always two less than the average number of 
pairs in the females. The number of pairs, counting the anal pair, 
is invariably uneven, and all variations, according to species, sex, 
variety, are produced by subtraction or addition of an eyen 
number. The authors consider it settled beyond doubt that the 
young Geophili at once possess the full number of segments and legs: 
not ofly have quite young specimens taken with their mothers pre- 
sented the same number as the adult, but such specimens just 
hatched have been observed with a greater number of legs than is 
generally found in the adult. The pores of different kinds—ventral 
pores (on the ventral segments), the pleural pores (on the pleure of 
the last joint which carries limbs), and the anal pores (on the last 
protruding apodal segment)—also afford good characters; but their 
number increases considerably as the animals grow in size. The 
colour is of very little value ; the designs produced by the intestines 
shining through the integuments vary according to the state of 
feeding ; and the intensity of the usually darker colour of the claws 
depends principally on the time which has elapsed since the last 
moulting. The length of the body and of the antenne is not with- 
out importance, but varies according to the mode in which the ani- 
mal is killed and preserved; and the characters derived from the 
shape of the individual joints are by far more valuable. The 
authors propose a new genus, Senipeus, distinguished from Geo- 
philus by the absence of anal pores, by having a smaller tooth- 
less claw on the first pair of maxillary legs, a larger second pair of 
maxille, thicker anal limbs in the male, and by the skull-plate 
being divided. They enumerate five species of Geophilus as Danish, 
of which one is new,—and two of Senipeus, probably both new. 
They reject Koch’s genera Linotenia and Stenotenia, because the 
principal mark of distinction between them, the varying thickness 
of the anal legs, is in most species a sexual distinction; and they 
consider the species of Stenotwnia to be the females of corresponding 
males described as species of Linotenia.. They also reject both 
names, as being formed in direct violation of the rules of nomencla- 
ture, and in any case only applicable to congeners of. Tenia. The 
species in question are united in the new genus Scolioplanes, of 
which they enumerate three species as Danish. They propose a new 
genus, Schendyla, based on Koch’s Linotenia nemorensis, and distin- 
guished from Scolioplanes by the labrum being united to the clypeus, 
the cutting-edge of the mandibles short, with but few teeth; the 
maxille of the second pair are small, but the claw of the first pair 
of maxillary legs is exceedingly large, and the anal legs, even in the 
female, very thick. Himantarium subterraneum, K., is also men- 
tioned as Danish. 
Dr. Bergsée’s paper on the Tarantula (iii. p. 239) and the curious 
phenomena of Tarantism contains a careful and interesting examina- 
tion of the voluminous literature of the subject, proving that the 
term ‘‘tarantism” has been applied to facts of entirely different 
nature, which, thanks to popular superstition and ignorance, 
have been confounded with and all ascribed to the poisonous wounds 
