186 S& H. Seudder—Myriapods of the genus Euphoberia. 
and flora was that of a region abounding in low and boggy 
land and pools; and the presence of marsh-frequenting flying 
insects does not contradict such a belief. 
owever, are not the only points in which the ancient 
forms differed from the recent. We have so far examined only 
a typical segment; lét us now look at the body as a whole and 
at special segments. The modern Diplopoda are of uniform 
size throughout, tapering only at the extreme tips; while 
these ancient forms, at least when seen from above, diminish 
noticeably in size toward either end, and especially toward the 
tail, giving the body a fusiform appearance, its largest part 
being in the neighborhood of the seventh to the tenth body seg. 
ments, which were often two, or even three, times broader thao 
the hinder extremity, and considerably broader than the head or 
the first segment behind it. A single segment seems to have 
carried all the appendages related to the mouth parts, while im 
modern Diplopoda two segments are required for this purpose; 
this peculiarity of the fossil is inferred solely but sufficiently 
from the fact, perhaps even more remarkable, that every Se" 
ment of the body (as represented by the dorsal plates), even 
those immediately following the single head-segment, 18 Tul 
nished with éwo ventral plates and bears éwo pair of legs; &% 
is well known, each of the segments immediately following the 
head-segments in existing Diplopoda bears only one ventra 
plate, and only a single pair of legs,—a fact correlated with 
e embryonic growth of these creatures, since these legs and 
thése only are first developed in the young diplopod The 
mature forms of recent Diplopoda, therefore, resemble their 
more than do these Carboniferous myriapogs, ® 
fact which is certainly at variance with the general accord be- 
tween ancient types and the embryonic condition of thelt 
modern representatives, and one for which we offer no exp!an™ 
atory suggestion worth consideration. 
Unfortunately the preservation of the appendages of the 
head in these Carboniferous forms is not sufficiently good 10 
any that have yet been found to allow any comparison with 
modern types. This is the more to be regretted since these 
parts are those on which we depend largely for our judgment 
of the relationship of the Myriapoda to other Insecta and to 
Crustacea. If they were present and sufficiently well defined, 
we may well suppose that they would afford some clue to the 
them in a group apart from either of the sub-orders of modern 
Myriapoda and of an equivalent taxonomic value. 
Cambridge, January 7, 1881. 
‘ 
+ 
co 
PS an SL 
