licv. S. Griiliaiu l^iucle-Hiik.s 0)i }fijriapoda. 1()1 



VfrlioefF. However, AVood'd name cceruleocinctus must le- 

 |il,u;o teutoiiicKS, liuving the priority by many yeai-s." Witli 

 this the writer aorees, and, until it is sho^^ n conchisively that 

 Ci//nidroiuIus is a synonym of J)ij)loiulHS, it would seem that 

 t'i)r tliis form we must uso the name Gylindroiulaslondinensisj 

 var. ca'ndeoctiiclns (Wood). 



Cyl'indroinlus oioeni (Bollman, 1887) 

 = C.frisms (Verlioeif, 1891). 



Ohanihorlin sj)eaks of a form lie calls Diploiulas luscus 

 (\lein('rt). There is no doubt that the animal known to 

 Chanibcrlin under this name is Inlus frisius, Verhoeff, 1891, 

 (or Chaniberlin finds that " Comparison of American speci- 

 mens with some from Holland shows complete agreement in 

 the gonopods of the male." In litf. Chamberlin explains to 

 me why he calls this species luscus (Meinert). "Probably/' 

 lie says, " I have been influenced in ui^ing Meinert's name 

 luscus by the fact that specimens sent me many years ago by 

 Dr. ]\[einert under the name are the same species as owenif 

 etc." 



In his paper Chamberlin gives the following synonymy : — 



" 1868. Julm luscus Meinert, Naturh. Tidsskr., 3 R., V, p. 9. 

 1887. Juhis oicenii Bollman, Ejitoui. Amer., ii, p. 2'28. 

 1891. Julusfrisius Veihoetlj l}erl. Eat. Zeits., x.Yxvi, lift. 1, p. 133, 



pi. (J, tigs. 17-21. 

 1914. Jitlm hesperus Chamberlin, Canad. Ent., p. 314." 



He also states, " I'here seems little doubt that this is the 

 true hiacus o\ Meinert j but if luscus is held to be indeter- 

 minable with certainty, then oioenii must take precetience 

 o\^x frisiusy The writer agrees, and until further evidence 

 is forthcoming proposes to use the name oioeni^ as it appears 

 at the head of this section. 



Bracht/iulus pusillus (Leach, 1814). 



Chaniberlin says, "This species is sometimes placed by 

 European workers in a subgenus Microbraehyiulus ; but as it 

 is the tyj)e of 13rach} iiiliis any genus or subgenus in which 

 it is included must bear this name." Consequently we must 

 cease to use the subgeneric ap[)ellation in tiie case of this 

 animal. 



Ophyiulus pilosus (Newport, 1842). 



For this form Chamberlin uses the name Ophiuhis hnigaho 

 (C. Koch). From what has been said by Bioleinann (1919), 

 Ann. dc Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 9. Vol. ix. 11 



