86 



Syn. Isometrus atomarius id. t. c. p. 247 — ? Simon, op. cit., pp. 363 — 364. 

 „ „ mucronatus, Thoreil. Ann. Mus. Genov. XXVII, pp. 



566-8 (1889). 

 „ „ curvidigitus, Kraepelin. Jahrb. Hamb. Wiss. Anst. VIII, 



pp. 81—83 (? all the synonymy). 



Dr. Max Weber obtained very many specimens of this species at 

 Maumerie, Sikka and Endeh in Flores and in Saleyer — both these 

 islands being new localities for the species. 



As regards the name for this form, I follow Dr. Thokell in 

 thinking that there is little need to doubt that Fabbicius had before 

 him a specimen of it when he described mucronatus. I also adopt Prof. 

 Kraepelin's view that Gervais' curvidigitus is the species identified by 

 Simon as varius of Koch. Moreover, to my mind there is no doubt that 

 Simon correctly referred his specimens to the species described by Koch 

 as varius. Prof. Kraepelin, however, calls this into question on the 

 grounds that Koch describes the keel on the hand of his specimen as 

 „geschärft" and the last abdominal segment as „vierkielig", — both of 

 which phrases can scarcely be made to apply to Simon's examples. But 

 this is, I think, being needlessly cautious. For although there are only 

 two complete keels on the sternite in question, yet traces of the lateral 

 ones are usually to be observed , so that often even to the naked eye 

 there appear to be four keels. Prof. Kraepelin's other objection I cannot 

 understand, for Koch says of his species (pp. 29 — 30) „die Hand der 

 Taster kiellos" and again „die Hände ohne Längskiele". It is the finger 

 that is said (and truly) to be sharply keeled, but not the hand. 



Prof. Kraepelin gives as synonymous with this species chinensis of 

 Karsch , atomarius of Simon and questionably armillatus of Gervais. 

 With regard to chinensis I think he is probably right, although I 

 have not seen Karsch's specimen. But although I have examined no 

 less than 62 examples of the species now under consideration , I have 

 not yet seen one that agrees with Simon's description of atomarius. 

 Mr. Oates' examples, however, of atomarius, which were kindly pre- 

 sented by their collecter and describer to the British Museum, are not, 

 to my mind, specifically distinct from his varius. For they only differ 

 slightly in colour and do not present the fea'unes which Mons. Simon 

 gives as characteristic of his atomarius. 



As regards Prof. Kraepelin's suggestion respecting armillatus, I can 



