291 
Notes on the Uropodinse. By A. D. Michael. 
the sternal plate instead of at its edge or anterior to it. This last 
character is, however, shared by some genera of Gamasinae. 
We do not at present know for certain what the Uropodinse feed 
upon. They are chiefly sluggish creatures, slow in their movements 
and not moving much. They are frequently solitary, inhabiting 
moss, old wood, &c., or hiding under stones ; many species, however, 
such as Uropoda Krameri , U. ovalis, &c., are often found in great 
numbers together in old barns and hay-lofts, hot-beds, Ac. A con- 
siderable number of the species inhabit ants’ nests, and live on friendly 
terms with the ants. 
The Principal Bibliography relative to the Uropodin^. 
De Geer was the first observer of any of the Uropoda. In his 
well-known work * he describes what he calls Acarus vegetans ; this 
was doubtless an immature creature, and de Geer probably did not 
distinguish between the nymphs of several species. 
Latreille, in 1806,| instituted the genus Uropoda for de Geer’s 
Acarus vegetans , correctly making it a genus of Gamasidse. 
Hermann, in 1804, had described another species ( cassideus ) 
which really should have been of the same genus of Gamasidse as 
vegetans,% but Hermann did not recognize this ; he was deceived 
by its appearance, and included it in his genus Notaspis, a genus which 
did not apply to Gamasidse at all, but was really synonymous with 
Latreille’s Oribata. Some little confusion has arisen from this, as 
some modern authors have adopted Hermann’s name instead of 
Latreille’s, relying probably on the order of date, but forgetting that 
Hermann’s numerous Notaspides were not Gamasids, and that this 
species was only included by mistake. This use of the term Notaspis 
has, I believe, now been generally abandoned. In 1826 von Heyden 
proposed the genus Cilliba for Hermann’s cassideus. § 
Of late years several attempts have been made to divide the 
Uropodinse into genera. These are noticed further on. 
In addition to the works above referred to, the following are 
* ‘ Memoires pour servir a l’histoire des Insectes,’ Stockholm, 1778, t. vii. p. 123, 
pi. vii. figs. 15-19. 
f ‘ Genera Crustac. et Insec.,’ Paris, 1806, genus 62, t. i. p. 157. 
+ ‘ Memoire apterologique,’ Strasbourg, 1801. 
§ ‘ Versuch einer system atischen Eintheilung der Acariden,’ Oken’s Isis, Bd. 10, 
p. 613. This paper is difficult to obtain, and consequently is generally known from 
Gervais’ imperfect summary of it, which contains several mistakes. Gervais gives 
the genus as Cillibano, which has been often quoted ; but it is an error; the original 
is Cilliba ; Agassiz has it correctly. Agassiz says the name is derived from klAAos, 
a Doric word for an ass. I doubt if this can be the direct and sole derivation ; I 
should think it is derived from iciAAi&as or KiAAi^avres, the props on which the Greek 
soldiers, when tired, supported their shields ; the form of the shield on its props 
would resemble that of the Acarus. Of course Cilliba would be a contraction, 
possibly not very correctly made. Probably the better word would have been Cillibas. 
Of course the word tuAAifiavTes is probably derived from klAAos and /3 aw ( Baivco ), to 
go, or cause to go. 
x 2 
