292 ON THE ONYCHOPHORA OF W. AUSTRALIA. 
Bouvier describes the jaw as follows :— 
“‘ Les mandibules (fig. 3) sont dépourvues de dents accessoires 
sur leur lame externe, comme dans les Peripatoides suteri, novee- 
seylandic et occidentalis, et contrairement a ce que lon observe 
dans le Peripatoides orientalis; leur iame interne présente 5 dents 
ACCESSOILeS.” 
The description and the figures (text-fig. 1, A, B) indicate that 
there is no difference between the mandibles described by Spencer 
and those deseribed by Bouvier. 
There is, however, an interesting variation which seems to have 
escaped both Spencer and Bouvier, probably owing to the ex- 
amination of Jaws from only one individual. Having mislaid my 
first preparation, which agreed with that of Spencer, I mounted 
the jaws from a second individual. Jt was rather difficult in this 
specimen to make out the fifth tooth, although it was present 
(text-fig. 1,C). Wishing to procure a more definite example, I 
removed the mandibles from a third individual, the largest one in 
my collection. ‘To my surprise there were siz very definite teeth 
on the inner lamella of the jaw (text-fig. 1, D). Thus the actual 
number of accessory teeth given by Bouvier and Spencer may be 
exceeded. 
The Feet. 'The number of claw-bearing legsis perhaps the most 
important character in the diagnosis of the species Peripatoides 
gilesti and of Peripatoides woodwardi. Both Spencer and Bouvier 
accentuate the number of legs. which in each case is said to dis- 
tinguish their species from all other Australian forms except 
Peripatoides sutert. In both species, however, the number is sixteen ! 
Spencer writes, “The number of legs together with the structure 
of the jaws, serves to distinguish this species from all other 
Australian species of either of the genera Peripatoides or Ooper- 
inatus.” 
Bouvier states that ‘‘ Le Peripatoides woodwardi resemble au 
Peripatoides suterz et se distingue de tous les autres Peripatopsides 
Australasiens par la présence constant de 16 paires de pattes.” 
Thus, so far as the supposed characteristic features are con- 
cerned, the specimens of Spencer and Bouvier are identical. 
The inference is obvious. 
There remains the question of priority in nomenclature. 
Spencer’s paper is dated March 1909, although read in September 
1908. Bouvier’s paper is dated 1909, but no month of issue is 
given. In answer to a request for the exact date, Dr. Michaelsen 
writes that the paper was publishedin December 1909. Spencer’s 
description has therefore several months’ priority. There is, then, 
only one species of Peripatus so far discovered in the region near 
Perth, and that 1s Peripatoides gilesii Spencer. ‘The name Per- 
putoides woodwardi must be rescinded. 
It was hoped that specimens of Peripatoides occidentalis would 
be collected at Bridgetown for purposes of comparison, but, owing 
to heavy rains this year, that district was flooded at the time 
when the expedition had been arranged. 
