ACACESIA.—EUSTALA. 503 
also probably the same, though the sketch of the palpus of the male leaves much to 
be desired in point of definition, while the vulva of the female is not figured. 
EUSTALA. 
Eustala, E. Simon, Hist. Nat: Araign. édit. 2, i. p. 795 (1895). 
Type £. anastera, Walck. North America, 
¢. Coxa i, with a hook and femur ii. with a groove. Coxa and femur of pedipalp with a coniform spur and 
chitinous ridge respectively. Coxa i. with a small tubercle above towards its base. ‘Tibia ii. slightly 
incrassate, with three or: four spines beneath and a double series of 6—5 long spines, the upper series 
longer, on the inner side, besides dorsal spines. Patella of pedipalp bearing a single apical spine. 
Femur i. with a series of three spines on the apical fourth, ii. with four spines about the middle, and iii. 
and iv. devoid of spines, beneath. Tarsal sheath of palpus with a well-developed basal uncus ; tibia 
bilobate. Lateral eye-groups very slightly prominent. Central anterior eyes prominent. Posterior row 
very slightly recurved; laterals very small, one-fourth of a diameter apart. Anterior row straight. 
Central quadrangle broader than long, narrower behind ; central posteriors small, one diameter apart ; 
central anteriors much larger, one full diameter apart. Coxe and trochanters ii., iii, and iv. without 
spurs or spines. 
Q. Carapace very convex, or gibbous, on each side of the central groove, much depressed towards the eyes. 
Posterior row of eyes very much recurved ; anterior row straight, by the margin of the clypeus. Central 
quadrangle less narrow behind than in the male, otherwise the eye-formula is similar. Sternum one- 
half longer than broad. Lower margin of fang-groove with three teeth. Legs armed with short spines; 
femora i.—iv. entirely devoid of spines beneath. Vulva with the scapus and base fused together, @he scapus. 
directed forwards. Abdomen triangular (very elongate in some species), projecting beyond the spinners. 
Colulus present. Protarsi iiv. with spines beneath. 
The type of this genus, £. anastera, Walck., is a species of very doubtful identity, 
and it is possible that all the varieties quoted by McCook are correctly referred 
to it by him. ‘There are, however, no data for either confirming his decisions 
on the matter or the contrary, so that one can only settle which particular form we 
are to regard as Walckenaer’s species. McCook was the first to give a definite 
description and figure of the vulva of the female, by which we can with certainty 
understand what he means by £. anastera, Walck. One cannot be quite so con- 
fident as to the identity of the male, the palpus of which is figured by the same 
author; but the “conductor” certainly looks as though the species were identical 
with that referred to E. parvula, Keyserl., by Emerton, the females of this latter 
evidently belonging to E. anastera, McCook. In the case of the male, I here take 
Emerton’s decision, for there is no doubt about the identity of the species whose 
palpus he figures (Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci. vi.) under the name FE. parvula. Simon is 
certainly wrong in referring E. tlicitta, O. P.-Cambr., to Larinia, of which the species 
have no coxal hook in the male sex. Equally incorrect is this author in referring 
E. vegeta, Keyserl., to Acacesia; this species has no special affinity with A. folifera, 
Marx,=A. foliata, Hentz, but has the scape of the vulva “ antice directus,” a character 
which separates the genus Lustala from <Acacesia, according to Simon’s own 
diagnosis. 
