Packard.) 198 [June 16, 
gion slightly differentiated from the epicranium and forming the front of 
the head. In the Chilopods there is no well-marked clypeus ; only a short, 
narrow transverse preantennal clypeal region to which the labrum is at- 
tached. Meinert, in his valuable and pains-taking work on Myriopods 
designates what we here call the epicranium, the lamina cephalica ; the 
division sometimes indicated in front next to the antenna, he calls lamina 
Srontalis disereta, 
The labrum in the Chilognaths is a short, but broad, sclerite, very per- 
sistent in form, and not affording family or generic characters ; it is emar- 
ginate on the sides, with a deep median notch containing three acute 
teeth. The labrum may on the whole be regarded as homologous with 
that of the Hexapoda, but is very broad and is immovable. Very differ- 
ent is the so-called labrum of the Chilognaths, in which it consists of two 
parts, a central portion which may be homologized with the labrum of the 
Chilognaths, but is narrower, with a deep broad median notch at the bot- 
tom of which is a central stout tooth. 
In Orya barbarica Gerv., according to Meinert, the labrum has a me- 
dian suture, dividing it into two pieces, each with numerous fine teeth on 
the outer edge. 
‘In Dignathon microcephalum Lucas (Meinert. Tab. ii, fig. 15), and in 
Geophilus sodalis Bgs. and Mein., Meinert figures and describes the lab- 
rum as consisting of pars media and two partes laterales, distinctly sepa- 
rated by suture; no such differentiation as this is known to us as occur- 
ring in the labrum of Hexapods, 
This labrum is flanked on each side by a transverse sclerite, much 
broader than long ; these pieces may be called the epilabra ; to the outer 
edge of each is attached the cardo of the so-called mandible (protomala), 
What we have for brevity called the epilabra (fig. 1) are the “lamine 
fulcientes labri’’ of Meinert.* 
The so-called mandibles of the Myriopods are the morphological equiva- 
lents of those of insects, but structurally they are not homologous with 
them, but rather resemble the lacinia of the hexapodous maxilla. For 
this reason we propose the term protomala (mala, mandible) for the man- 
dible of a myriopod ; mala would be preferable, but this has already been 
applied by Schiddte to the inner lobes of the maxilla of certain Coleop- 
terous larve. 
The protomala consists of two portions, the cardo and stipes, while the 
hexapodous mandible is invariably composed of but one piece, to which 
the muscles are directly attached, and which corresponds to the stipes of 
the myriopodous protomala, The stipes instead of being simply toothed, 
or with a plain cutting edge, as in Hexapoda, has, in the Chilognaths, two 
*Myriapoda Musaei Haurinensis. Bidrag til Myriapodernes Morphologi og 
Systematik. Ved Fr. Meinert, af ‘‘ Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift,” 3 R.7B., Kjében- 
havyn, 1871, p. 105. See Tab. i, fig. 4. Meinert states that the lamin fulcientes 
do not belong to the labrum itself, and that the form of these pieces varies 
greatly according to the species. 
