THE GENERAL SUBJECT. 
Myri 3 
12. Karlinski, Justyn. Materyjaly do fauny wijow Galicyj zachod- 
niej z. r. 1878-1882. Sprawozd. kom. fizyogr. xvii. pp. (226)-(238). 
60 known species. 
13. Kennel, J. Yon. Entwickelungsgeschichte von Peripatus. Zool. 
Anz. vi. pp. 531-537. Translation in Nature, xxix. p. 92. Remarks 
thereon by Moseley & Sedgwick, Nature, xxix. p. 196. Abstract in 
J. R. Micr. Soc. (2) iii. pp. 833-835. 
Observations have been made on Peripatus edwardsi , and on a new 
species, P. torquatus , from Trinidad ; the latter is the largest species yet 
known. The uterus always contains embryos in every stage of develop- 
ment, which seems to show that the female is only impregnated once. 
The ovum contains no yelk, but the embryo is nourished by a placenta 
and pedicle attaching it to the uterine epithelium. Yon Kennel’s con- 
clusions as to the relations of the embryonic and adult mouth and anus, 
and as to the origin of the mesoblast, are widely different from Balfour’s. 
14. Kirk, T. W. Habitat of Peripatus novce-zelandice. N. Z. J. Sci. i. 
p. 573. 
Lists of localities where P. novce-zelandice has hitherto been found in 
New Zealand. 
15. Latzel, R. Beitrag zur Myriopoden-Kenntniss Osterreich-Ungarns 
und Serbiens. Yerh, z.-b. Wien, xxxii. pp. 281 & 282. 
5 new species are described — Glomeris carpathica and Polydesmus 
tatranus , Mountains of Gallicia and Hungary, Craspedosoma carpathicum, 
Lysiopetalum fasciatum, and lulus strictus , Hungary and Servia. 
16. Lucas, H. Note sur le Blaniulus guttulatus. Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. (6) 
iii. pp. lxv. & lxvi. 
17. Meinert, F. Caput Scolopcndrce. The Head of the Scolopendva 
and its Muscular System. Copenhagen : 1883, 4to, 77 pp., 3 pis. 
The author describes carefully the external anatomy of the head of 
Scolopendra subspinipes, Kohlr., a species which he considers typical of 
the Chilopods. Newport’s view, generally adopted in England, that the 
head of a Chilopod consists of eight subsegments, is disproved. The 
views of forty-six authors on the morphology and nomenclature of the 
inouth-parts are given in a tabular forip, and criticized by Meinert. He 
himself gives a new explanation and a new nomenclature of these parts. 
He thinks he has proved that the mouth-parts of Scolopendra and of 
biting insects are homologous. He does not consider the antennal seg- 
ment and antennae as homologous with the mouth- segments and their 
appendages. The details have been worked out carefully, but had 
Meinert paid more attention to embryology, it seems that he would have 
had to admit that the antennal segment and the antennae are homologous 
with the other segments and their appendages. Meinert denies any ven- 
tral part to the lamina cephalica, but Sograff, in his memoir on Lithobius 
(Moscow: 1880), seems to have proved that in the Chilopods the alimentary 
canal does at first open as a mouth in the antennal segment, moving back 
at a later stage into the mandibular segment, while the antennas originate 
in the same manner as the maxillae and mandibles. 
1883. [VOL. XX.] 
b 22 
