Notes on the Uropodinse. By A. D. Michael. 
305 
Uropoda vegetans Duges ? “ Recherclies sur l’ordre des Acariens,” 3me 
Mtknoire, An. Sci. Nat., 1834, t. 2, Zool. p. 29, 
pi. 33. 
„ „ Contarini, ‘ Cataloglii degli nccelli e degli insetti 
della provincia di Padova,’ Bassano, 1843, p. 16. 
„ „ Megnin ? “ Mem. sur ^organisation &c. des Acariens 
de la famille des Gamasides,” Journal de l’Anat. 
et de la Physiol. (Robin) May 1876, p. 327. 
„ „ Haller, “ Acarinologisches ” (2nd paper), Archiv fiir 
Naturges., 1881, p. 187. 
Uropoda ovalis Kramer, “ Ueber Gamasiden,” Arcbiv fiir Naturges., 
1882, p. 408. 
„ „ Berlese, Acari &c. Ital., fasc. xli. No. 9. 
Notaspis „ Kramer, “Zur Naturgescbicbte einiger Gattungen 
aus der Familie der Gamasiden,” Arcbiv fiir 
Naturges., 1876, p. 73. 
Uropoda vegetans Latreille, Gen. crust, et ins., i. p. 158, 1806, No. 1. 
„ „ Kocb ? ‘ Deutscblands Crustaceen,’ Ac. Heft 38, 
pi. 19. 
„ „ Muller, J., “ Ins. Epizoen der Malirischen Fauna,” 
Jabreshefte der Naturwiss. Section der Mahr- 
Scbles. Ges., 1859, p. 157. 
The TJropoda vegetans of Canestrini (‘ Prospetto dell’ Acarofauna 
Ital.’) is Uropoda tecta Kramer, not the present species. 
This is the original species of Uropoda upon which the genus was 
founded, but for no species is it more difficult to be certain what precise 
creature the original finder intended to describe, or to elucidate the 
synonymy. The description given by de Geer in his original notice 
of the species is evidently taken from an immature creature, a nymph, 
but in Uropoda the nymph so closely resembles the adult that this 
alone would not prevent the identification ; but de Geer’s description 
is not sufficient for that purpose ; his plate, however, does give the 
form. Most of the early writers merely copied de Geer, Duges how- 
ever gives a figure which he himself remarks differs in form from de 
Geer’s ; it is very doubtful if it was taken from de Geer’s species ; 
the same may be said about Koch’s figure, he not improbably really 
had U. tecta before him when he drew it. Probably the first really 
distinct figure was Megnin’s, but Megnin’s description does not assist 
it ; the figure agrees well in shape with de Geer’s, but the first leg in 
Megnin’s drawing terminates in a bunch of hairs without caruncle or 
ungues ; de Geer’s description and plate do not show how the first leg 
terminates (Duges clearly has a caruncle and claws) Probably Megnin’s 
plate should be considered equivalent to the first correct description if 
it were not for the fact that, I believe, no subsequent acarologist has 
ever been able to find a creature corresponding to Megnin’s figure ; 
inasmuch as the species which I think must be U. vegetans , and which 
agrees with Megnin’s in other respects, has a caruncle and claws on the 
first leg ; and all other known species of anything like the shape of 
1894 Y 
