1895.] Entomology. 865 
Leach. Thus Wood’s proposition was to assign to Strigamia a type 
species acuminatus, and Latzel is in error in citing Strigamia Wood, as 
a synonym of Geophilus. If we allow that aborted names and syno- 
nyms can be thus resuscitated, Strigamia Wood, must have stood as a 
valid genus had it not been for the fact that ©. L. Koch had in 1847 
established the genus Linotænia on Geophilus crassipes. C. L. Koch, a 
congener of acuminatus, so that Strigamia Wood is a synonym of Lino- 
tænia C. L. Koc 
Neglecting the claims of Linotænia, Bergsoe and Meinert, in 1866, 
described Scolioplanes on Geophilus maritimus Leach, also congeneric 
with acuminatus and crassipes. The only ground on which Scolioplanes 
could be considered valid is that Linotænia as described by Koch was 
not a natural group, but this criticism would destroy a large majority 
of the older genera. It may be that the establishment of Scolioplanes 
was wise at the time, for the identities and relationships of even the 
European Geophilide were uncertain. At present, however, the 
European authors seem to be agreed that acuminatus, crassipes and mar- 
itimus are members of one genus, and while this view is held it would 
seem that the genus must stand as Linotznia C. L. Koch, with Scolio- 
planes Bergsoe, and Meinert as synonym. 
Still another complication has been introduced by Sseliwanoff.® He 
uses Scolioplanes Bergsoe and Meinert, but recognizes Strigamia Gray 
as distinct, describing it at length and giving figures of Strigamia par- 
viceps Wood, from California, also placing Strigamia Wood as a syno- 
nym of Strigamia Gray. To judge by the descriptions and diagrams 
of Meinert, Latzel and Daday, the European species as represented by 
crassipes are to be distinguished from parviceps by apparently good gen- 
eric characters. That the American forms which have been referred 
to Strigamia, Scolioplanes and Linotenia are all congeneric is improb- 
able, but Sseliwanoff has assumed the responsibility of separating par- 
viceps and its allies from Linotænia (Seolioplanes), and his distinctions 
should not be ignored, even if Strigamia is no longer available as a 
generic name. 
Dissections of Strigamia bothriopus Wood, S. chionophila Wood, and 
S. parviceps Wood, show that the mouth-parts of all three are very much 
alike, and that they differ from Linotænia in having the labial sternum 
divided, and the labial palpus two-jointed, the basal joint with a pro- 
cess, as in Sseliwanoff’s figure of parviceps. Hence it seems probable 
that the other American species are more likely to be related to a genus 
ê Geophilidæ museja imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, p. 12 (1881). T. I, figs. 
1-8. i ; 
