Fam. 7. SPHÆROTHERIDÆ[1] Oculi aggregati. Antennæ in capitis latera positæ.
Tribe Sphærotheria, Brandt, Recueil, p. 174, 1841.
Fam. Zephroniidæ, Gray, Encyclop. Anat. and Physiol., vol. iii, p. 546, 1847.
Fam. Glomeridæ, Newport et Gervais (partim).
Sub Ord. IV. STRONGYLIA.[2]
Os manducens. Organorum sexualium apertura in corpore antico.
Sub Ord. Diplopoda, Wood, haud auctores.[3]
Fam. 8. POLYXENIDÆ.[4]
Fam. Polyxenidæ, Newport, Linn. Trans., vol. xix, et auctores.
Fam. 9. POLYDESMIDÆ. Scuta et sterna arete conjuncta. Corporis segmentum annulum integrum faciens, laminis lateralibus instructum.
Fam. Polydesmides, Leach, Linn. Trans., vol. xi, p. 381.
Fam. Polydesmidæ, Gervais, Apteres, vol. iv, p. 123 (partim).
Fam. Polydesmidæ, Newport, Linn. Trans., vol. xix, p. 277 (partim).
Fam. Oniscodesmidæ et Polydesmidæ, Saussure, Mem. Soc. Hist. Nat. Geneva, tome xv, p. 272.[5]
Fam. 10. IULIDÆ. Scuta et sterna arete conjuncta. Subsegmentorum posticorum sterna nonnihil obsoleta. Corporis segmenti annulus postice emarginatus, laminis lateralibus haud instructus.
- ↑ Mr. Brandt described the genus Sphærotheria a year before the figures of Zephronia were published in Griffith's Animal Kingdom (see Recueil, p. 173), and his name must stand for the genus. Moreover, the first indication of the family by Mr. Gray, which I can find, is that given above, which is several years later than that of Brandt.
- ↑ στρογγυλος, teres.
- ↑ To retain the name of Diplopoda with such an entire alteration of its significance, as I was at first disposed to do, would make a great deal of confusion, and there is really no principle of nomenclature or usage demanding that it should be done.
- ↑ This family is inserted here, following Mr. Newport.
- ↑ It is very evident, as shown by M. Saussure, that Gervais was in error in placing the genus Oniscodesmus in the Glomeridæ. It does not seem to me, however, that the Oniscodesmidæ merit the rank of a family; the group appears to be nothing more than a sub-family at most.
