1972] 
Huffman — Cambciloid Millipeds 
201 
out changing the original label), but the holotype of E. distinctior 
was made available. Chamberlin’s account of the gonopods leaves no 
doubt that distinctior and kaorinus are congeneric and that the genus 
may be safely interpreted on the basis of a species other than its 
type. 
Examination of the material of E. distinctior revealed that Cham- 
berlin’s verbal account of gonopod structure is fairly accurate. It 
also proved that he mistook the second pair of legs for the first, as 
will be evident from the drawing that I made (Fig. i) of the head 
and first segment. The first legs are in fact slightly reduced and 
partly concealed by the second, although this is no excuse for failure 
of the describer to look closely (particularly since at that time a 
number of cambaloids with diminutive first legs were known). The 
major stated distinguishing character of the genus is thus abolished, 
since the first pair of legs are really not much different from those of 
Dimerogonus , being small with transversely prolonged coxae and a 
four-jointed telopodite lacking a tarsal claw. Since the form of the 
first legs is almost invariably constant among cambaloid species hav- 
ing similar gonopods, I think it is reasonable to assume that the 
structure illustrated here is essentially the same as obtains in E. 
kaorinus , the type species. 
The original illustrations of the type species of Dimerogonus , D. 
orophilus Attems (1903, pi. 7, figs. 1-6) show that the first legs of 
the male are unusual in having the three basalmost segments broadly 
enlarged, twice or three times as wide as the small, short, distalmost 
three podomeres. This species likewise differs from E. kaorinus in 
gonopod structure. Dimerogonus , despite the considerable number 
of trans-Pacific species subsequently referred to it by divers authors, 
is unquestionably to be regarded as a so-far monotypic genus known 
only from the Blue Mountains of New South Wales. A second 
species, however, also originally included in Attems’ concept of 
Dimerogonus , does show a striking similarity to E. distinctior. This 
species, D. insulanu $ Attems, agrees closely with distinctior in both 
gonopod structure and form of the first male legs; there is no doubt 
that the two species are congeneric as a comparison of my drawings 
(Figs. 1-4) with Attems Figures 7-14 of his 1903 paper will show. 
In 1944, K. W. Verhoeff noted that the great difference in form 
of the first male legs was sufficient basis for separating Attems’ two 
species generically, and he proposed the name Insulocambala for in- 
fulanus. Since insulanus is manifestly congeneric with the type of 
Eumastigonus , and since the latter name has 24 years priority over 
