138 ARANEIDEA. 
shallower pit on the side of cach anterior shoulder. The 
spermathece lie posteriorly, one on each side of a long narrow 
pale wedge-shaped area, each being marked with a black 
chitinous spot . 6 6 ee ee ee et ee MAGNUS. 
b. Carapace similar, but in the type specimen very dark, leaving a 
small bright heart-shaped yellow spot in centre. Patelle 
i. and ii, entirely pale. Apical half of protarsi i. and il. 
strongly annulate with brown. Tibie and tarsi i. and i. 
more or less suffused with brown. Vulva very similar to 
that of M. maynus, but less well developed . . . . + « parvus. 
ii. Vulva consisting of a broad deep concavity. 
a. Patella i. and ii. entirely dark brown. Extreme base and apical 
third of tibie, extreme base and apical half of protarsi, and 
whole of tarsi dark brown . . . 2. ee aw ew ee ee) Olandus, O. P.-Cambr. 
b. Protarsi and tarsii. andii. brown . . . . . . « + +). (Sagittatus, O. P.-Cambr. 
c. Legs entirely yellow . Rone ee seer luteus, O. P.-Cambr. 
B. Tibiee and protarsi i. and ii. incrassate ; spines on underside longer, 
stouter, curved, articulated on a more or less distinct ridge on each 
side of the segment beneath. ‘Transverse ridge through ocular 
area less pronounced and more concave, seen from in front. 
Tarsi iii. and iv. cylindrical. Sternum nearly circular. Width 
of carapace one-fourth shorter than femur 1. 
i. Carapace deep mahogany-brown, with a broken yellow line down 
the centre and a fainter line on each side. Femora i. and i. 
brown, speckled with white. Patella and tibie darker; pro- 
tarsi and tarsi pale brown. Abdomen black, speckled with 
white . 2. 0. 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee eee) depress. 
ii. Carapace and legs similar. Abdomen much paler. Vulva 
similarly formed in both species. . . . rugosus,O. P.-Cambr.; vigilans, O. P.-Cambr.* 
Nors.—The differences in the coloration of the above forms are not entirely reliable. The vulva, too, 
varies very much within certain limits. M. signatus (O. P.-Cambr.) and M. propinquus (O. P.-Cambr.) are 
both identical with M. magnus (Keys.). I have also no doubt that 1M. blandus, M. sagittatus, and M. luteus 
(O. P.-Cambr.) belong to the same species ; and it is even possible that, considering the variability of the form 
of the vulva, these may all be identical with M. magnus (Keys.), being simply dwarf or not fully developed 
forms. At any rate, the males described under M. blandus (O. P.-Cambr.) are identical with the same sex of 
M. magnus (Keys.), of which the type is before me. The female described under M. depressus (O. P.-Cambr.) 
is simply a shrivelled example of M. rugosus (O. P.-Cambr.); Mf. vigilans is an undeveloped female of the same 
form. It appears to me highly probable that the males described under M. tibialis (O. P.-Cambr.) really 
belong to M. rugosus (O. P.-Cambr.), while, except for a slight difference in the incrassation of tibie i. and ii. 
I cannot distinguish the male of M. tubialis from that of M. depressus. The type (3) of M. vigilans cannot 
now be found. 
* An immature female. 
