114 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 



decrease in size, and a small median lobe does not appear on the anterior 

 surface of the lingua. 



In the finished condition in Campodea (JMeinert, '65, Taf, XIV. Fig- 

 uren 17, 19) lingua and superlingute are simple but distinct lobes, and 

 the small fourth lobe mentioned by Uzel persists. The lingual stalks 

 are surprisingly like those of Orchesella ; the articulation witli the cardo 

 Meinert did not show, but it has since been observed by v. Stummer- 

 Traunfels. 



The English translator of Meiuert's paper is really responsible for the 

 use of the terms "lingua" and " paraglossae " in connection with this 

 subject, and not Meinert himself; the latter writer applied only the 

 Danish expressions " Tuugen " and " Bitungens tvende Flige." 



Von Stummer-Traunfels ('91, Taf. I. Figur 11) also represents the 

 " Ligula," " Paraglossai," and " Stutzstucken " of Campodea. On page 

 121 I criticise this author for holding that the so-called maxillary 

 palpus of Collembola belongs to the neighboring superlingua. The em- 

 bryology shows that the delicate membrane connecting either palpus 

 and superlingua is of quite subsidiary importance, being simply as much 

 of the cuticula of the maxillary pocket as intervenes between the base 

 of a superlingua and the adjacent maxilla, — in fact, only the anterior 

 portion of the cuticula surrounding the tissues which attach the maxilla 

 to the head. 



Japyx agrees closely with Campodea in the structure of these organs 

 (Meinert, '65, Taf. XIV. Figur 8 ; von Stummer-Traunfels, '91, Taf. I. 

 Figur 10), and there is no doubt about the homology of the lingua, 

 superlinguse, and lingual stalks of Japyx with those of Collembola. In 

 the words of v. Stummer-Traunfels ('91, p. 221), " Diese typische Form 

 des Stutzapparates und der Befestigung der Cardincs an diesem findct 

 sich bei Campodea, Japyx und den Collembola in beinahe identischcr 

 Weise ausgebildet." The author is mistaken ('91, p. 222), however, in 

 saying that the mandibles are attached to the Stiitzapparate, apparently 

 having overlooked the tentorium, which is quite another structure than 

 his " Stiitzapparat." 



Regarding Lepisma, Ileymons ('97'', p. 59;")) simply remarks : " Ich 

 . . . bemerke nur, dass die Bildung der einzelncn Korpertheile, z. P). 

 des Hypopharynx der Mundwerkzeuge, durchaus an den bei Orthoptercn 

 bekannten Tj'pus anschliesst." 



Machilis, also, has decided Orthopteran affinities, as Wood-Mason ('79) 

 found, yet the mouth-parts of both Lepisma and ]\Iachilis, althougli 

 ectognathous, as in Orthoptcra, are constructed upon fundamentally the 



