“TERRA NOVA” EXPEDITION. 
48 
Length of trunk . . . . . . 3'08 
Length of cephalic segment . . . . . 1 • 2 
Width between first and second lateral processes . . *52 
Width across second lateral processes . . . . 2‘64 
Fourth right leg— 
First coxa . . . . . . . . • 52 
Second coxa . . . . . . 1■4 
Third coxa . . . . . . . *76 
Femur . . . . . . . 3'2 
First tibia . . . . . . . 3'08 
Second tibia . . . . . . 3'2 
Tarsus and propodus . . . . . . 1 * 48 
Claw . . . . . . . . '76 
Remarks .—The identification of the “ Terra Nova ” specimens with Hodgson’s 
briefly described species has been confirmed by comparison with one of the syntypes. 
The presence of only five segments in the oviger shows that the species must be 
referred to Plioxichilidium in the sense in which the genus is accepted by Loman 
(1908, p. 64). According to that author, only two of the described species belong to 
this genus—namely, P. femoratuin (Rathke) and P. robn,stum (Dohrn). Hodgson’s 
species agrees with the latter in the form of the proboscis (in which it also agrees with 
certain species, such as Dohrn’s P. aiu/ulatum, that would be referred by Loman to 
Anoplodactylus ), but differs in having the body segmented, the lateral processes 
separated, and the legs much longer and more slender. 
Genus ENDEIS, Philippi. 
Endeis, Philippi, 1843, p. 175; Norman, 1908, p. 231. 
Chllophoxus, Stebbing, 1902, p. 187. 
Phoxicdiilus, auctt. plur. nec Latreille, 1804, p. 137. 
Genotype. — Endeis gracilis, Philippi, 1843, p. 176, PI. ix, fig. 1. 
Remarks. —Nothing appears to be wanting to justify Norman’s restoration of 
Endeis in place of Stebbing’s Chiluphoxus , except a formal designation of the genotype, 
which is here supplied. Loman (1911, p. 16) states that Philippi described the ovigers 
(under the name of palps) as having eight segments, and bases on this a protest against 
the proposed change of name. As a matter of fact, Philippi’s description and figure 
agree in attributing seven segments to the so-called “palps.” In a later paper, Loman 
(1915, p. 200) makes no mention of this discrepancy, but maintains his protest on a 
different ground, “ Puisque Philippi releve lui-nreme les differences entre Endeis et 
P/uu’ichilus , il serait par trop temeraire de vouloir identifier ces deux genres.” The 
reply to this would seem to be that, whatever Philippi may have thought about it, 
his figures show clearly that he had before him a specimen congeneric with Phalangium 
