866 The American Naturalist. [September, 
founded on parviceps than to the European genus Linotznia. 
It is proposed, then, to end, if possible, the confusion which has long 
attended the use of these generic names by the following arrangement 
of synonomy : 
Genus Geophilus Leach (1814), type carpophagus Leach. 
Syn. Strigamia Gray (1842), no type. 
Syn. Arthronomalus Newp. (1844), type longicornis (Leach). 
Genus Linotænia C. L. Koch (1847), type crassipes (C. L. Koch). 
Syn. Strigamia Wood (1865), type acuminatus (Leach). 
Syn. Scolioplanes B. & M. (1866), type maritimus (Leach). 
Genus Tomotænia nom. nov. 
Syn. Strigamia Ssel. (1881), type parviceps (Wood). 
The genus Linotænia is distributed over Europe and Northern Asia. 
The species are: acuminatus (Leach), crassipes C. L. Koch, maritimus 
(Leach), pusillus Ssel., sacolinensis (Meinert), sibiricus (Ssel.), sulcatus 
e. 
The genus Tomotænia, including species which must be provisionally 
referred to it, is distributed over temperate North America. The genera 
of Chilopoda, however, do not appear to be confined by continents, so 
that a further modification of generic lines and distribution is to be ex- 
pected. The species which, pending further investigation, should be 
referred to Tomotenia are: bidens (Wood), bothriopus (Wood), bran- 
neri (Bollman), chionophila (Wood), exsul (Meinert), fulva (Sager), 
lævipes (Wood), longicornis (Meinert), maculaticeps (Wood), parviceps 
(Wood), robustus (Meinert), rubra (Bollman), walheri Wood. 
—0O. F. Coox. 
Picobia Villosa (Hancock).—A response to Mr. E. L. Troues- 
sart. In the April number of Tar American Naturaist, p: 3882- 
384, I described and figured“ a new trombidian ” under the above name. 
In a more recent issue of the same magazine, July, p. 682-684, Dr. E. 
L. Trouessart, of Paris, takes exception to the species claiming it to be 
a form of Cheyletin, already well known in Europe, not differing from 
Syringophilus bipectinatus Heller. This writer has contributed some 
valuable articles upon the Acarina with which I was perfectly conver- 
sant at the time, notwithstanding he says I was “ not acquainted with 
the modern literature on this interesting type.” Thinking it neces- 
sary to mention only those papers which bore a classical relation to the 
species described, these were omitted. In adopting the genus Picobia, 
I was not alone, for there are others who dissent from the classification 
Mr. Trouessart lays down, notable among these being Newman,’ who 
' Treatise on Parasitic Diseases, p. 235, 1892. 
