I 
407 
by Latzel, almost without doubt by Kenyon to the same species, 
while Cook re-establishes it as a species, with the remark that „no 
adequate description lias been published“. It is certainly not P. 
Huxleyi , perhaps it is the same species as that described and fi¬ 
gured by Kenyon, but if the type specimen is not re-examined by 
a solid author the species will remain obscure for ever. 
3. Pauropus impar Cook („Brandtia“ VI, 1896, p. 30). Cap- 
tured in Long Island, U. S. A species described so imperfectly 
that it will be impossible to recognize it with tolerable certainty. 
4. Pauropus Bollmani Cook („Brandtia u VI, 1896, p. 31). 
Captured at Bloomington, Indiana, U. S. The description, if this 
name can be applied, is so poor that it is a model if the intention 
has been to set forth a riddle which no zoologist can solve. 
Family 2: Brachypauropodidæ. 
Diagnosis. The head is free and uncovered; almost the po- 
sterior half of its upper surface is naked, the hairs being arranged 
near the lateral margin and on the anterior half of the upper sur¬ 
face. The terga of the trunk have all rather firmly chitinized plates; 
of such plates nine pairs and an unpaired one are present. The 
plates of the same pair are separated from each other by a mode¬ 
rately broad band of thinner skin, and the pairs of plates are se¬ 
parated from each other by transverse bands of thinner skin. The 
first pair corresponds to the segment without legs plus the first 
pedigerous segment, and each plate has four setæ; each of the other 
pairs corresponds to a segment with one pair of legs, and each 
plate has two setæ; the unpaired plate belongs to the last seg¬ 
ment of the trunk and bears four setæ. The tactile setæ are in- 
serted rather distant from the lateral margin of the plates, and the 
posterior pair is at most not longer than the first; close behind the 
hind margin of the head is found a sublateral pair of hairs; near 
to each of the four anterior pairs of tactile setæ two short setæ 
