295 
Notes on the Uropodinw. By A. D. Michael. 
occupied. The best available name which I have been able to hit 
upon is Glyphopsis* and that name I propose to adopt. I believe it 
has not yet been used.j 
“ TJropoda ” must, of course, be retained for the typical genus, on 
the type of De Geer’s vegetans ; this will include the larger part of 
the Uropodinae. As Canestrini and Berlese have thought it best to 
separate those without ambulacra, and I wish to adhere to their 
classifications as far as I can, I have divided off the species in that 
condition from TJropoda ; although. I scarcely think that I should 
have originated the distinction, and I have not thought it necessary 
to introduce it into the rough and irregular (sculptured) group. 
Discopoma is the name which Canestrini and Berlese have em- 
ployed ; it is a very good name, and I should be glad to retain it. 
I rather doubt, however, if it he possible to do so. The position is 
this. The type of the genus must be considered to he Hermann’s 
cassidea. That is the species which Berlese figures in the adult stage 
to illustrate his description of the genus, J and the name itself shows 
that it was the species which Canestrini very properly based the 
genus upon ; hut in 1826 C. von Heyden (loc. cit.) published a 
classification of the Acarina, which has been a difficulty in the way 
of acarologists ever since; in that classification he founds a new 
genus, “ Gilliba ,” expressly on the type of cassidea , and makes the 
absence of claws on the front legs the distinctive character ; it is not 
intended to he instead of TJropoda because von Heyden gives TJropoda 
also, and it cannot be suggested that cassidea differs from other species 
of TJropoda, except in the absence of ambulacra on the front legs. 
Heyden states erroneously that the other legs have tridactyle claws ; 
they really are didactyle. 
In reply to my inquiry, Prof. Berlese was kind enough to inform 
me that he had not used the earlier name of “ Gilliba ” because he 
and Canestrini had agreed some time since that Heyden’s work was 
so imperfect that it would be better to disregard it altogether. T 
fully agree that it would be better and much more convenient to do 
so, if possible. Heyden’s was the mere sketch of a classification of 
which the fuller details were intended to appear later, but they never 
did appear. It creates forty-eight new genera ; most of them are 
based upon entirely incorrect anatomy, often morphological characters 
which do not exist in any of the Acarina, and which it would he 
impossible to retain. In far the greater number of new genera the 
type given is a species of his own (so stated), but the species, as far as 
I know, were never described ; doubtless Heyden intended to describe 
them, but did not, and we cannot he sure even what families they 
belonged to. In about a quarter of the new genera, however, a well- 
* y\v(pr], a sculpture, and orpis, appearance. 
t The term Trachyuropoda used by Berlese ( Acari Austro- Amer., p. 39, note) 
seems to be descriptive, not classificatory. It would not suit my purpose, as it does 
not include such forms as splendida. J Acari, &c., Ital., fasc. 68, No. 7. 
