SERICOPELMA. 15 
2. Tibia i. (¢) without spurs, but with two pairs 
of spines at the apex beneath. Protarsus 1. 
scopulate on the apical half only . . . . Merrropenma, Becker. 
** Scopula beneath the tarsi ili. and iv., or 1., i1., i11., 
and iv.,so divided . . . . . . (No Central-American genera yet discovered.) 
ii*. Scopula divided by a row of spines. Scopula of 
tarsi i., ii., li, & iv.sodivided . . . . . . . ACANTHOPELMA, gen. nov. 
SERICOPELMA. 
Eurypelma, subg. Sericopelma, Ausserer, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, xxv. p. 195 (1875). 
Femur iy. with a thick scopuliform pad on the inner side. Tibia i. with a few spines only (no spurs) at 
the apex beneath. Tibia and patella i. equal in length to tibia and patella iv. Carapace longer than 
broad. 
The above diagnosis is based on spiders which evidently belong to this genus as 
subsequently characterized by Simon. His diagnosis of the eye-position, however, does 
not apply: “ Oculi antici intervallum mediorum oculo angustius”; neither does the 
diagnosis where he separates Theraphosa and Sericopelma from Acanthoscurria: *¢ Oculi 
antici in lineam valde procurvam (margine antico mediorum pone marginem posticum 
lateralium sito),” for the former; and for Sericopelma: “ Oculi antici in lineam minus 
procurvam (margine antico mediorum ante centrum lateralium sito).” This latter 
characterization applies exactly to the four males before me from Chiriqui, the same 
locality from whence Simon’s specimen, which he identifies as Sericopelma rubronitens, 
Auss., was obtained. 
Hither this characterization of the eye-position is not of generic importance, but 
merely specific, or even perhaps individual, as I strongly suspect, or it is of generic 
importance. In the latter case the four males from Chiriqui would belong to a 
new genus between Acanthoscurria and Sericopelma, differing from the former by the 
absence of spurs beneath tibia i. and from the latter by the eye-position. 
I do not, however, believe that these males are generically distinct from those of 
Sericopelma, and I therefore diagnose the genus by the same characters as those given 
by Simon, but without laying stress on the eye-position, for I fully expect Simon’s 
male from Chiriqui and mine from the same place to belong at any rate to the same 
genus, even if they are not specifically identical. 
1. Sericopelma communis, sp.n. (Tab. I. figg. 11, 11 a-c, 3.) 
Type, d, in coll. Godman & Salvin. 
é. Total length 70 millim. Carap, 27-25 x 23-25; ceph. area 17. Legs: i. 94; ii. 88; iii. 88; iv. 106. 
Pat.+tib. i. 29; iv. 29. Prot.i.17; iv. 26. Oc. tumulus 3:5 x8. 
3. Body and legs entirely coffee-brown, the carapace, femora, abdomen, and lower parts darker. The patelle 
and tibie of all four pairs of legs with the normal double lines paler russet-brown. Protarsi i. and ii. 
with a sinuous bar of russet-brown passing from the outer side at the base to the inner side towards the 
apex. Legs of first two pairs clothed with short russet-brown hairs, of third and fourth pairs with 
