313 
Notes on the Uropodinse. By A. D. Michael. 
Trachytes segrota Ivocli. 
Celseno segrota Koch, ‘ Deutsclilauds Crustaceen, 5 &c., fasc. 32, fig. 5. 
„ „ Berlese, ‘ Acari &c. Ital./ fasc. 38, No. 10. 
For further remarks as to the identification and synonymy of this 
species see the next species — Trachytes pyriformis. 
Kramer, Canestrini and Berlese j assert that either this or the next 
species (they [do not distinguish between the two) is the Gamasus 
lagenarius of Megnin. I do not see the reason for this ; I should say 
that it was not possible to identify anything from Megnin’s description, 
but Megnin’s species is not his own but Dugas’, to whom he refers ; 
and Duges’ description would not suit the present or the next 
species. 
Found by Mr. E. Bostock at Colwyn Bay, Anglesea, and by myself 
in Cornwall ; local and rather rare. 
Trachytes pyriformis Kramer. 
Trachynotus pyriformis Kram., “ Zur Naturgeschichte einiger Gattungen 
aus der Familie der Gamasiden,” Archiv fur 
Naturges., 1876, p. 80. — “ Ueber Gamasiden,” 
op. cit., 1882, p. 420. 
„ „ Can. e Fan., “ Intorno agli Acari Italiani,” 
Atti del R. 1st. Yeneto di Sci. &c., 1877, 
p. 63. 
Celseno segrota .. Canestrini, ‘ Prospetto dell’ Acarofauna Ital.,’ 
yoI. i. 1885, p. 101. 
A good deal of confusion has arisen as to this species and the last 
(segrota). What seems to me to have happened is this ; Koch originally 
described what he called Celseno segrota (I have already explained 
that his genus cannot stand) ; Koch’s figures and descriptions were 
never very good. Long subsequently Kramer found a creature which 
he called Trachynotus pyriformis (his genus cannot stand any more 
than Koch’s) ; he does not seem to have known of Koch’s prior 
description, &c. ; but he subsequently discovered it, and as this species 
is very like segrota , there not being more difference than there often 
is between Koch’s figure and description and the creatures he was 
actually drawing and describing, and as Kramer only knew of one 
species, he naturally thought it was Koch’s segrota , and he says it is 
in his “ Ueber Milben ” ; he gives very good reasons for not adopting 
the genus Celseno , but it is not quite apparent why, thinking them 
identical, he did not drop his specific name of pyriformis and adopt 
segrota; luckily he did not do so. Canestrini and Fanzago seem, 
from their figures, to have found Kramer’s species ; they adopted his 
name and his synonymy, they do not seem to have known that there 
was more than one species. Berlese seems to have found what really 
was Koch’s species and not Kramer’s ; he did not think that there were 
two species, he had one, and as Kramer said his was Koch’s Berlese 
