GEA. 453 
GEA. 
Gea, C. L. Koch, Die Arachn. x. p. 101 (1843). 
Type G. spinipes, C. L. Koch. Asia. 
This genus differs (sec. Simon) from Argyope in having the four anterior eyes almost 
equidistant, whereas in the latter the centrals are much nearer together than to the 
laterals. One species only has been recorded from Central America. 
1. Gea heptagon. 
Epeira heptagon, Hentz, Journ. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. vi. p. 20, t. 3. figg. 5 (2), 6 (3g) (1850) '; 
Spid. U.S. p. 122, t. 14. figg.5 (2),6(¢), t. 18. fig. 72 (¢)*. 
Gea heptagon, Keyserl. Spinn. Amer., Epeiride, p. 76, t. 3. figg. 58, 58 a, b (?)°; McCook, Amer. 
Spid. iii. p. 208, t. 12. figg. 8, 8a-c (2)*. 
Hab. Norta America!?+4, Southern United States 2\—Guarrmata (fide Peckham®). 
—Souto America, Brazil 3. 
Subfam. ARANEINA. 
The table given for the separation of the subfamilies of the Argyopide (anéed, 
pp. 412, 413), based on E. Simon’s work (Hist. Nat. des Araign. 2nd edit.), must be 
regarded as purely tentative. The character quoted for distinguishing the Tetra- 
gnathine from the Metine and Araneine, for instance, viz. the absence of a boss 
at the base of the mandible, is not reliable, for in some species of Tetragnatha it is 
evidently present. In many other respects also Simon’s work is entirely misleading : 
on pp. 790, 795 (op. cit. i.) he places Epeira illicita, O. P.-Cambr., under Larinia, a 
genus of which he says, “ coxe maris mutice”; H. illicita, however, possesses a well- 
developed hook on coxa i., and falls quite naturally into his own genus Eustala (loc. 
cit. p. 795). Again, on the same page, Simon places Hpeira vegeta, Keys., of which 
the type is before me, under Acacesia: the male of this species has no long spines 
under tibia ii., and the “uncus vulve” of the female is not ‘‘postice directus,” but 
“‘antice directus,” and also falls quite obviously under Eustala. Of Mangora Simon 
says “cox maris mutice,” whereas there is in the type-species and all others known 
to me a well-developed hook on coxa i. 
Hentzia basilica, McCook, he places under Cyrtophora: this species, if it be congeneric 
with Argyope trivittata, as I have no reason for doubting, does not belong to Cyrto- 
phora, but falls more naturally between Meta and Leucauye, for it has no coxal hook 
in the male, a character which is well marked in Cyrtophora. 
So, too, the removal of Cyrtophora (type C. opuntie) from the genus Araneus, based, 
at least as it stands at present, on the separation of the lateral eyes, cannot be 
supported. The separation of the lateral eyes is very variable in species of Araneus 
otherwise obviously allied. 
It is difficult to understand why Turckheimia walckenaeri, O. P.-Cambr., and Cyclosa 
