ACARINA FROM THE JUAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDS 577 
this species the type of a new subgenus, Phyl/hermannia and as in the case 
of Eutegeus without giving any generic diagnosis. It is therefore left to later 
investigators to find out, whether the presence of leaf-shaped bristles is asso- 
ciated with other features and thus of generic value. For this purpose I have 
examined material of A. reticulata THORELL and the present species and, as 
a matter of fact, discovered some differences. It is, however, impossible to 
know whether these also occur in P. phyllophora, because one of them cannot 
be seen without dissecting the specimens and MICHAEL had only one specimen 
to his disposal, which he did not dissect. On the whole my species agrees in 
so many respects with MICHAEL’s that it seems reasonable to suppose that it 
agrees also in these. 
A comparison with H. reticulata and P. dentata n. sp. reveals the follow- 
ing differences. In the former the border between the propodosoma and hys- 
terosoma is strongly chitinized and immovable. In /. denxtafa there is a narrow 
transverse fold of weak chitin between them and the postero-lateral edge of 
the propodosoma has a sharp tooth, opposite to which there is a similar tooth 
below the anterior margin of the dorsal shield (fig. 46). 
This feature is indeed so difficult to see if the specimen is not dissected, 
that even such a careful investigator as MICHAEL failed to see it in Carabodes 
elongatus, which now is the type of the genus Odontocepheus, which is charac- 
terized through this feature. 
Further the epimera I—III of P. dentata, and also of P. phyllophora, do 
not form a right angle with the sternum as is the case in Hermannza but run 
obliquely forwards. 
In both P. dentata and P. phyllophora there is a transverse fold between 
epimera IV and the genital aperture. This fold is absent in Hermannia. In 
P. dentata the hind margin of epimera IV is thickened to a ridge, the median 
half of which has 3—4 rounded, knoblike teeth. We do not know whether 
this raised ridge is a generic character, as I believe. It seems incon- 
ceivable that if they were present in P. phyllophora MICHAEL would not have 
noticed them. 
But it is evident that M. examined a very dark specimen of his species, 
which he did not dissect, nor treat in any way to make it transparent, nor 
looked at against a dark field illuminator. Else he would have seen the inter- 
lamellar and lamellar hairs, which he failed to do. It is therefore very likely 
that his species has the posterior margin of epimera IV developed as a similar, 
dentate ridge. 
On the whole it is in our present stage of knowledge not quite easy to 
define Phyllhermannia from Hermannia, and we must await the discovery of 
more forms until this can be definitely settled. The following diagnosis is 
therefore tentative. 
Diagnosis: General shape the same as in Hermannia, but texture 
either smooth or finely punctured. Dorsal hairs of hysterosoma, 
lamellar and interlamellar hairs lanceolate, leaf-shaped and hairy. 
Postero-lateral angles of propodosoma with a sharp tooth, opposite 
to a similar tooth on anterior margin of hysterosoma. Epimera I— 
III not running at right angles with sternum but directed obliquely 
