370 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the History of a 



In the first place, if we compare the description of the 

 Azorean with that of the Macleiran specimen, we find that they 

 resemble each other in colour, number of antennal segments, 

 hairiness of sternites, number and shape of coxal pores, arma- 

 ture of anal legs and of the female generative appendage, 

 while they differ a little in the number of ocelli and of teeth 

 on the maxillary sternite and in that the Madeiran specimen 

 is said to be posteriorly granular. Again, the example from 

 Marocco agrees with both in colour, in the number of its 

 antennal segments, in the shape of its coxal pores, and in the 

 armature of its anal legs and of the generative appendage. 

 But while it resembles the specimens from the Azores and 

 differs from that from Madeira in the number of its maxillary 

 teeth, it resembles that from Madeira and differs from those 

 from the Azores in the number of its ocelli and in being pos- 

 teriorly roughened. It further differs from the Madeiran 

 specimen in the spine-armature of the first pair of legs ; and 

 it differs from both in the number of its coxal pores. Thus 

 we see that Dr. Meinert's galathece differs from his hngipes, 

 which is doubtless too the longipes of Porath, in the number 

 of its maxillary teeth and of its coxal pores, and in the spine- 

 armature of its first pair of legs. But what is the value of 

 these characters? Are they of specific importance? Clearly 

 in the absence of series of examples these questions can only 

 be answered by analogy, that is by seeing what value they 

 have in other species of the genus. If now we turn to Dr. 

 Latzel's description of L. forjicatus, we find that the number 

 of maxillary teeth varies from 10 to 14, that the coxal pores 

 are either transversal, oval, or more or less round, and vary 

 from 6, 6, 6, 5 to 12, 11, 11, 10, and that the spine-armature 

 of the first pair of legs is not constant. Thus it is clear that 

 the differential characters of galathece as described are of very 

 little value. It is clear, moreover, if other characters aiforji- 

 catus be examined, that the Moorish, Madeiran, and Azorean 

 specimens differ far less from each other than do individuals 

 of forficatus. But when a number of specimens agree precisely 

 in most of their characters, and differ only in characters which 

 are known to be still more variable in an allied species of the 

 genus, it is surely illogical to consider such differences as 

 worthy of specific consideration. To put it more clearly, 

 suppose A, B, C, and D be four specimens, of which A and 

 B are beyond all question members of the same species. If, 

 then, it be found that A resembles and differs from B precisely 

 as C resembles and differs from D, surely there are no grounds 

 for concluding that C is a different species from D? The 

 conclusion is rendered still more untenable if the differences 



