ACARINA FROM THE JUAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDS 559 
is to be said about the description and it is manifestly insufficient to give us 
any idea of what it looks like. 
Subsequently BANKS (1895, p. 15) gives a short description of the species. 
Unfortunately he omits telling us, whether he has examined the type specimen of 
SAY, which according to SAY was kept in the cabinet of the Academy of 
Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, and if he has not, it is quite possible that 
there are two distinct species. 
BANKS’ description is as follows: »Length 1,3 mm. Black; cephalothorax 
broadly triangular, narrowed behind, margins serrate, seta short, clavate; ab- 
domen elevated, dorsum composed of four concentric circles, connected to each 
other by curved lines or ridges, the circles are not perfect, but elongate and 
pointed behind, the central one is divided by a median line which is connected 
to the sides by oblique lines; there are a few fine hairs on the anterior margin 
of the abdomen; sides and venter granulate, legs quite long, smooth and with 
a few simple white hairs.» 
As a matter of fact this diagnosis contains two statements which are 
distinctly opposed to those made by Say. The latter describes the legs as 
rather short and minutely granulate, whereas BANKS tells us that his species 
has quite long and smooth legs! And BANKS gives later a drawing of his 
species (1915, fig. 203, p. 101), which amply confirms his statement that the 
legs are long; indeed they are quite exceptionally long for a Weolzodes. 
In 1909 EWING (p. 415, figs. 23—26 pl. 16) described a species which 
he called Neoliodes concentricus SAY (?) on specimens which according to him 
do not agree with BANKs’ figure of that species. In respect of the length of 
the legs it certainly agrees better with SAy’s description than BANKS’ does. 
EWING writes: »If it should prove in the future to be new, I would suggest 
that it be named after Mr. Hood, who first found the species in the middle 
part of the continent.» As a matter of fact BERLESE has subsequently called 
it Hood? and referred it to Platyliodes. 
And this imperfectly described species, which most likely is composed by 
two species, is made the type of a new genus by JACOT, the same author who 
in Science (1930, p. 273) writes: »Coldly considered there is perhaps no more 
illogical procedure in our scientific. nomenclature than this author notation. 
For usually on turning to the author’s work, instead of finding a 
detailed description, a detailed set of figures and comparative 
data, one finds a few lines in Latin which might fit one of many 
species, or a fairly long description which dodges the differential 
characters.»' 
It is not my intention to put any blame on the shoulders of BANKS 
for having failed in 1895 to realize that there may be many species on which 
SAY's diagnosis of JV. concentricus fits. Because at that time nobody could 
guess, how extremely rich in species the Oribatei were. In 25 years genera 
which previously embraced only one or two species have come to be raised 
to families containing several genera and 40—50 species, as is evidenced f.i. 
by the genus Galumna. 
1 Widened by me. 
