Abstract
IT is impossible to give an unqualified reply in the negative to Mr. Lloyd Bozward's question; but for reasons stated in the note appended to Miss Rose Haig Thomas's communication, I see no grounds for doubting that the specimen she observed was an example of Linotænia crassipes, and not of Geophilus electricus (= Scolopendra electrica, Linn.). So far as my experience goes, the latter is very scarce in the south of England. It must be borne in mind, however, that there is no safety in the assumption that every luminous centipede found in this country is certainly referable either to one or the other of these two species. As a matter of fact, the family Geophilidæ is represented in England by at least a dozen species, belonging to five genera, and it is possible that all of them possess the property of phosphorescence. Perhaps it is not surprising that persons unacquainted with these facts jump to the conclusion that every luminous centipede they see must be co-specific with the one to which Linnæus gave the name electricus. This is so far from being the case, that not one of the many specimens that have been brought of late years to the British Museum, on account of its luminosity, has proved to be an example of this species. No doubt, however, there is much that might be learnt on this subject by the careful preservation of specimens, with particulars as to date, locality, &c., and I need hardly add that I shall be very pleased to identify any examples that are sent or brought to me at the British Museum for that purpose.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
POCOCK, R. A Luminous Centipede. Nature 53, 223 (1896). https://doi.org/10.1038/053223c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/053223c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.