526 MR. R. I. POCOCK ON THE 



The tliii'd paper is an account of the anatomy of a JPerlpatus 

 from Dominica, by E. C. Pollard, published in vol. xxxv. pt. 2, 

 of the Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. 1893. This Peripatus is inci- 

 dentally named P. dominicce on p. 290. It is said to differ from 

 P. JEdtoardsii of Sedgwick in that (1) it has from 25 to 30 pairs 

 of legs instead of 29 to 34, and in that (2) there are on the legs 

 no white papillae, such as are found in the males of P. Edwardsii. 

 Moreover, it differs from P. trinidadensis in the number of its 

 appendages, the latter having 28-31 pairs, and in the number of 

 teeth on the inner blade of the jaw, trinidadensis having a much 

 larger number. And, lastly, in dominicce the primary papillae 

 are cylindrical, while in trinidadensis they are conical. 



The obvious question that arises in connection with these speci- 

 mens of P. dominicce is :■ — -Are they or are they not co-S]Decific with 

 the examples mentioned above which were obtained in the same 

 island and by the same collector ? The latter examples certainly 

 seem to differ from those described by E. C. Pollard in their den- 

 tition and in the form of the papillae. But I confess that I am 

 still sceptical concerning the value that is to be attached to these 

 characters. As for the number of legs, since these appendages 

 vary from 26 to 30 pairs in the females examined by E. C. Pollard, 

 it is hard to find rational grounds for considering that female 

 examples from the same island, in which the legs vary in number 

 from 28 to 31 pairs, belong to a different species. 



Lastly, concerning the Dominican individual obtained by 

 Mr. Augas. In the number of its legs, as well as in colour, ifc 

 agrees with the majority of the examples examined by E. C. 

 Pollard, and the papillae are cylindrical, when examined from the 

 side ; so there can be little doubt that it is referable to P. do- 

 oninicce of Pollard. But since Dr. Grabham and Mr. Cockerell 

 have shown that in the Jamaican JBeripatus a similar colouring 

 may or may not occur, we are still in doubt as to whether dominicie 

 is specifically different ivova jmnaicensis, and as to whether it may 

 not be merely a " mutation " of trinidadensis. I am inclined to 

 the latter opinion.* 



* See Additional Note on p. 542. 



