122 
The Irish Naturalist. 
August, 
156 (230 National Museum), labelled Lithohius microps } " collected 
by J. N. Halbert in 1905 south of the Devil's Punchbowl, Kerry. 
157 Rockingham, Co. Roscommon. Miss A. B Foster, coll. 15, 9, 15. 
158 Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim. N. IT. Foster, coll. 12, 7, 15. 
159 Boyle, Co. Roscommon. Miss M. L. Foster, coll. 15, 9, 15. 
Dr. Brolemann reported that Nos. 155 (Dublin 181), 
158, and 159 are undoubtedly Lithohiits Duhoscqui, and 
that 157 is probably the same. Dr. Brolemann was certain 
156 (Dublin 230) was not this species, but was unable to 
identify it, as it is an immature specimen and fresh from 
moulting. The specimen in 155 was a male, those in 157 
females, the one in 158 was a male. 
In 1894 Dr. Brolemann pubhshed a paper on the Myria- 
pods of the Forest of Andaine (Orne)^ in which he gave 
a list of material collected ; this included the name " Litho- 
bin.s microps Meinert " and three specimens were recorded. 
In the following year Dr. Brolemann published another paper 
on the Myriapods of the marshes of La Ferte-Milon (Aisne)-; 
in this four examples of the same species were recorded. 
In 1896 Dr. Brolemann published another study, ^ which 
included an account of researches into the validity of 
certain characters upon which Dr. Meinert had founded 
his species. Citing his previous papers, to which we have 
just referred, Dr. Brolemann pointed out the paucity of 
the material which they recorded, and explained that 
having collected Lithobiid material in abundance, in both 
summer and autumn, at Sannois and Asnieres-sur-Oise 
(Seine-et-Oise), which agreed with that obtained in the 
Forest of Andaine, and having received, from M. Duboscq 
of Grenoble, the same species from Coutances (Manche) 
where is was common in summer, he was enabled to make 
a detailed study of the species recorded in 1894 as microps 
Meinert. Dr. Brolemann found that certain constant 
characters in his material fitted in badly with Dr. Meinert 's 
description, and he also pointed out tliat there were good 
reasons for believing that the original description of 
microps was based on differing forms distinct from one 
(^) Feiiille des Jeunes Naiuralistes, No. 290, Dec, 1894, 
(^) Feiiille des Jeunes Natiirali'^tes, No. 298, Aug., 1895. 
(*) Ihid, No. 306, Apr., 1896, 
