MYKIOPODA OF THE MERGUI ARCHIPELAGO. 



301 



these was made by Sig. M. L. Fea, and has been kindly iDstrusted 

 to my care by the Marquis Gr. Doria for the purpose of identify- 

 ing the specimens it contains. The second, still more extensive 

 than the first, was amassed by Mr. E. W. Oates, who lias, with 

 great liberality, lately presented it in its entirety to the Natural 

 History Museum. 



An inspection of these tw r o collections is sufficient to show that 

 the Myriopod fauna of Mergui is in most respects obviously 

 related to that of South Burmah, and has certainly been derived 

 from it. Consequently, in the case of the species of Glomeris, 

 described on p. 290, I have thought it advisable to insert the 

 description of w r hat I consider is probably the parent spicies, 

 namely that occurring on the mainland, and to treat the insular 

 form as a variety. Otherwise, if the Mergui form be now 

 described as a new species, it will be necessary, when reporting on 

 the Burmese collection, to make the Burmese form the variety ; 

 that is, the continental, and probably therefore the parent, form 

 will stand as a variety of its own descendant — the insular form. 



On the other hand, it is desirable to consider auotber view of 

 the case which would arise if there were met with on the 

 mainland specimens resembling the Mergui form, pallida and 

 others constituting a series of gradations from it to the red- 

 bordered form carnifex. In that case carnifex should perhaps 

 be considered a variety of pallida. 



Or, again, supposing even that pallida does not occur on the 

 mainland, there is still the possibility that it (the Mergui form) 

 may uot be derived from the Burmese form as it at present 

 exists, but that it may be the unmodified descendant of a form 

 w T hich on the mainland, owing to keener competition, has been 

 transformed into carnifex, while in Mergui it has remained un- 

 changed, safe from such competition in its insular isolation. In 

 that case either the two forms should constitute distinct species, 

 or carnifex should rank as a variety of pallida. 



But to support this last hypothesis there is no evidence. In 

 fact such evidence as there is, namely half a dozen specimens 

 of carnifex from Tenasserim, and half a dozen of pallida from 

 Mergui, is in favour of the view which has been adopted, i. e. 

 that pallida is a variety of carnifex. If the question of the 

 relationship is capable of solution, the solution can only be 

 arrived at by the exertions of collectors in both the districts in 

 parts of which specimens have hitherto only been taken. 



