58 George: Lincolnshire Mites. 
-) Ss 
specimen I ever saw was sent to me in 1895 by Mr. Luff, of 
Guernsey. It was a carded specimen which I had to return. I 
recorded it in ‘‘ Science Gossip ”’ for November, 1896, under the 
name of Rhyncholophus plumipes. Six years afterwards, in 
August, 1902, I received from Mr. Luff a few living specimens, 
some of which I dissected and mounted for the microscope. 
Mr. Soar has kindly drawn a figure of this mite from a mounted 
specimen of his own, assisted by mounted dissections made by 
myself. Fig. g is a drawing of the dorsal aspect, showing 
the general appearance of the mite; the curious formation of 
the hind leg is well shown. It must be very curious to see it 
running on the sand in bright sunlight, with these legs carried 
perpendicularly above its body. When alive, even when rather 
feeble, if stimulated by a touch, the legs are immediately 
elevated. Their utility to the creature, so far as I know, has 
not yet been made out. 
Fig. 10 shews the mouth parts much enlarged. The palpi 
are seen to be distinctly five-jointed, the fifth joint pear-shaped 
and arising near the middle of the fourth. The circlet of fine 
hairs round the end of the proboscis is also indicated. In the 
centre only one mandible is shewn, the other having been with- 
drawn during dissection. Fig. 11 shews the tarsus of the first 
leg, which is compressed sideways, with claws and hair pad. 
Fig. 12, the chitinous rod, which lies in the dorsal groove, with 
its capitulum, which, in this case, is an inverted cone and not 
ball-shaped as in Rhyncholophus. Fig. 13 shews the peculiar 
leaf-like hairs or scales which cover the body. 
In the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 
December 14th, 1897, will be found another species of this 
genus figured and described by the Rev. O. Pickard Cambridge, 
under the name of Laéonia scopulifera (the name Eatonza being . 
preoccupied was changed to Hatontana, loc. cit. May 3rd, 1898). 
The mite which was found in Algeria will be seen to differ in 
several important particulars from the one here illustrated. In 
the ‘‘Canadian Entomologist” for February, 1900, Vol. xxxii., 
No. 2, page 32, is a paper on these mites by Nathan Banks of’ 
Washington, who states that Cambridge’s mite is the same as 
one described by Lucas in 1864 as R. plumipes,; that Birula 
described one in 1893, from Russian Armenia, as R. plumifer, 
and this appears to be the same as the one figured by me from 
Jersey. He also mentions another species from Switzerland, 
described by Haller, which he would therefore call halleri. I 
have not seen Haller’s paper, and therefore do not know wherein 
Naturalist, 
