84 
Psyche 
[September 
Cyphoderus assimilis Borner 
Plate 6, figure 12, Plate 7, figures 1, 5 
Cyphoderus assimilis Borner, 1906, Mitt. Naturhist. Mus. Hamburg 23:181. 
The true identity of this species is a difficult problem 
to solve. The species C. assimilis, C. similis, C. subsimilis, 
and C. simulans all have in common: bidenticulate mucro, 
unguis without tunica and with two unpaired teeth, only 
a single well developed basal ungual tooth and a clavate 
tenent hair. Although the absence of the tunica, the un- 
paired median tooth, and clavate tenent appear to show 
some variation and much difference of interpretation, we 
have little choice other than to accept these as real charac- 
teristics. It would appear from Borner’s description that 
his original diagnosis is a composite of two species. One 
of these is the species later described by Folsom as C . 
similis. The evidence for this is as follows: First Borner, 
1906, described the species from two collections; one from 
Egypt, and one from orchids from the West Indies. Since 
the form Folsom described was from the West Indies, it 
seems quite probable that it is equivalent to the latter 
form seen by Borner. If this is accepted then a number 
of facts indicate that the description is composite, and 
the Egyptian form is another species. Borner says that 
the inner terminal scale is shorter to somewhat longer 
than the mucro. In the West Indian and Central American 
specimens it is never as long as the mucro. He says there 
is usually a small lamella upon the mucro; the West 
Indian and Central American material always have some 
lamella. This would mean that to account for his descrip- 
tion the species seen by Borner were two : one an Egyptian 
form sharing the common characteristics of the group 
with a dental scale longer than mucro and without lamella 
on the mucro, and a second form later described by 
Folsom as C. similis. C. subsimilis of Delamare satisfies 
both requirements for the Egyptian species, but the figure 
of the unguis differs strikingly from that given by Borner 
in 1913. I have collections from Syria which satisfy all 
of the characteristics listed above. The one major dis- 
agreement between the species is the relative size of the 
