1873.] F. Stoliczka — Notes on the Indian Species of Thelyphonus. 141 



six teeth on the second joint of cheliceres and a very depressed* abdomen, 

 and that it has been confounded with two, if not three, other species ! 

 Now I confess after having carefully looked over the references alluded to 

 and Mr. Butler's notice, I have not succeeded in tracing Linne's T. caudatus, 

 nor will, I think, anybody else do so ; and if the species has been con- 

 founded by older writers, as no doubt it was, Mr. Butler has only added his 

 share to that confusion. 



Let us see whether and how far we might be justified to adopt the 

 name T. caudatus. 



Linne named a species in ' Syst. naturae 619, n. 2' Phalangium cauda- 

 tmn, which he characterises as ' chelis ramosis, ana setifero.'' In Museum 

 Lud. Reg., I764f, p. 426, the celebrated author describes the same species in 

 detail and gives ' habitat in Java,' quoting at the same time Seba's figures 

 7 and 8 on pi. 70 of his Thesaurus. To determine anything according to 

 Seba's figures is an altogether hopeless case, but we know that Linne's de- 

 scription of Ph. caudatum was drawn up after a Javanese specimen, and we 

 must, therefore, look to Java for Linne's Ph. caudatum. When we see 

 through our literature we find, I think, only two descriptions and figures, 

 which can bear out any comparison with Linne's type, and these are Lucas' 

 Th. caudatus ex Java, and Koch's Th. proscorpio ex India orientali et Java. 



In reading carefully over Linne's description, I think, the passages 



corpus ferrugineum, chelae articulis 5 constructae p (i. e. 



articulus tertius) subrotundus, inermis,.., y (i. e. art. quartus) subrotun- 



dus are decidedly more in favour of Lucas's than of Koch's figure. If 



we, therefore, wish to retain Linne's name we can reasonably, I believe, 

 only adopt it in the form in which it had been introduced into science by 

 Lucas in his Monograph of the genus in Guerin's Mag. de Zoologie for 1835. 

 Any other meaning, which we force upon Linne's name, is more arbitrary than 

 this, still I do not wish to leave altogether the references of previous authors 

 to this name without notice. 



I have already (p. 133) stated the reasons, which appear to me to indi- 

 cate that Koch's reinstated Th. proscorpio of Lattreile is distinct from Lu- 

 cas' Th. caudatus of Linne. 



Fabricius copied Linne. In Syst. entomologiae, 1775, p. 441, he only 

 added ' habitat in India orientali,' and I do not think it improbable, that 

 several specimens of Thelyphoni had been sent by the French and German 

 Missionaries from South India to European Museums. 



Pallas' two figures most probably refer to Th. scabrinus. He also had 

 Indian specimens. 



Lattreille, both in his Hist. nat. des Crust., p. 130, pi. Ix, fig. 4, and 

 in his Gen. Crust., p. 130, evidently confounded various species from differ- 

 * Linne says : abdomen ovato-oblongum, supra et subtus gibbum. 



