86 
Syn.  Isometrus  atomarius  id.  t.  c.  p.  247  —  ?  Simon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  363  —  364. 
n  n       mucronatus,  Thorell.  Ann.  Mus.  Genov.  XXVII.,.  pp. 
566-8  (1889). 
J}  w       curvidigitus,  Kraepelin.  Jahrb.  Hamb.  Wiss.  Ansfc.  VUE, 
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.  Thorell  in 
thinking  that  there  is  little  need  to  doubt  that  Fabricius  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  Möns.  Simon 
gives  as  characteristic  of  his  atomarius. 
As  regards  Prof.  Kraepelin's  suggestion  respecting  armillatus,  I  can 
