THE MYRIAPODA OF NORTH AMERICA. 189 



and Brachycybe has none, but until a satisfactory examination can be 

 made of the eyes, it is not best to rank any even as subgenera. 



The so-called vitreous ocellus of Platydesmus seems to me to be noth- 

 ing- but a slight swelling of the head behind the autennse. This genus 

 contains the following species : 



Platydesmus lecontii. 



Brachycybe lecontii Wood. Proc. Phila. Acad. Nat. Sci., 187, 1864 (Georgia); Wood, 



Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc, 230, 1865. 

 Brachycybe lecontei Cope. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, 66, 1870 (Jefferson Co., Tennessee). 

 Platydesmus lecontei Bollnian. Ent. Amer., 1, 1888 (Little Bock, Arkansas); McNeill, 



Bull. Brook. Soc. Nat. Hist., No. 3, 4, 1888. 

 Brachycybe rosea Murray. Econ. Ent. Aptera, 21, 1877 (California). 

 Platydesmus rosea McNielJ. Bull. Brook. Soc, Nat, Hist., No. 3, 4, 1888. 

 Platydesmus californicus Karsch. Mittheil. Munch. Ent. Ver., 144, 1880 (California). 



Segments rosy, with the lateral carinas paler; legs, antenna?, and 

 head principally yellow. Segments 35-55; first row of tubercles near 

 the anterior margin along the middle of segment, but ending at the 

 repugnatorial pore; second row arranged along posterior margin of 

 segment. Lateral carime rounded or slightly irregular in outline. 



Repugnatorial pore small; swelling small, placed near the mid- 

 dle and slightly sinuate. Anal segment armed with 4-8 setigerous 

 tubercles. Male: Anterior pair of legs scarcely larger than the rest; 

 claws normal. Anterior copulation foot 6-jointed, rather abruptly 

 curved downwards and ending in a small claw; second copulation foot 

 bent in between the first, 6-jointed, ending in four or five long and stiff 

 bristles. Length of body, 8-21 ,UIU . 



Habitat. — Tallulah, Georgia ; Little Rock and Magnet, Arkansas ; Geor- 

 gia (Wood) ; Jefferson County, Tennessee (Cope) ; California (Mur- 

 ray and Karsch). 



I have been unable to find any differences between P. lecontei and 

 rosea or calij amicus; especially Karsch's description of the latter, for 

 Murray's description of rosea is so meager that it is almost impossi- 

 ble to identify his species with any of the others. 



A careful study of the male copulation foot of the Eastern anrl West- 

 ern forms may reveal some differences. 



