NEPHILA. 449 
Hab. Nortu America, Southern, Atlantic, and Gulf States °, California § 9—MeExico, 
Tepic 9.—SoutH America, Colombia, Amazons, Brazil, &c.; ANTILLEs 3. 
In my paper? cited above I have suggested that it is probable that all the varieties 
of this Nephila described by various authors under several different names are really 
referable to the same species, and that even the variety known as N. cornuta (Pallas) 
is the same as the unhorned form usually identified as V. clavipes(Linn.). The tufts of 
hair on the legs, as well as the horns on the carapace, are very variable in extent and 
development. McCook ®® has described two species—J. wilderi and N. wistariana, 
on the non-horned varieties, as distinct from V. clavipes (Linn.). He says (loc. cit. 
p- 252) that . wildert “has a strong sternal cone opposite the labium, which is but 
faintly developed in WV. clavipes; and that it is also distinguished from that species by 
the hair-fringes on femora i. and ii., which are wanting in JW. clavipes.”” But in his 
description of WV. clavipes (p. 255) he says that this species has ‘sternal cones distinct, 
and one especially prominent in front of the labium, as in W. wilderi.” N. wistariana 
is also distinguished by ‘the absence of the strong sternal cone opposite the labium, 
which marks WN. wilderi.” It is difficult to understand how J. wistariana can be, in 
any case, different from WV. clavipes, for both these forms are distinguished from 
N. wilderi by the absence of tufts on femora i. and ii., and by the tubercle opposite 
the labium being only faintly developed (sec. McCook). But I cannot regard either 
the presence or absence of the tufts on femora i. and ii., or the greater or less develop- 
ment of the sternal tubercles, as of any specific importance in this genus, for I have 
numerous examples before me which present only a very slight tubercle and yet 
have well-pronounced tufts of hair on femora i. and ii. 
Nor can one regard the presence of cephalic tubercles as a character of specific 
importance, for I have before me [cf. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) vii. p. 327] several 
examples with the tubercles varying in size from nearly obsolete to stout conical 
protuberances. 
Subfam. ARGYOPINA. 
The species comprised under this heading differ from the Nephiline and the 
Araneine in having the posterior row of eyes strongly procurved. ‘The legs are long, 
as in Nephila, but the carapace is flattened ; while the vulva of the female and palpus 
of the male are more developed. ‘The web is similar in general respects to that of 
other orb-weaving Argyopide; but a characteristic feature is the attitude which the 
spider assumes when resting in the centre. In the case of A. argentata the legs are 
stretched out in pairs in the form of a cross, each pair lying on a long, narrow, zigzag 
band of thin silk, probably for the sake of protection from Hymenoptera and other 
enemies, though it is difficult to suggest what the spider represents when in this 
position, possibly a bird’s-dropping. 
BIOL. CENTR.-AMER., Arachn. Aran., Vol. II., November 1903. 3 Mf 
