COSMETID. 549 
B. Second and third ventral opisthosomatic somites separated by a trans- 
verse fold. Palpi long, slender, cylindrical, almost or quite unarmed ; 
the terminal claw not simply unciform, but dilate basally, piriform. 
Tarsi of legs ili. and iv. with a white vesicle beneath and between 
the claws. . . 0.0.0. ee ee ee ee ee ee ee) 6 RPALPINIDA, NOV, 
Fam, COSMETIDA. 
No sterno-coxal lobe on leg ii. Palpi not longer than the body; armed with five marginal spines only, the 
femur being compressed; the tibiee flattened-lamelliform, dilate and concave beneath, thus fitting over 
the mandibles. Terminal tarsal claw of palpus usually about half the length of the tarsus. Spiracles 
exposed. Second and third opisthosomatic somites fused together, without visible suture. Coxa iv. 
often very much enlarged, especially in the male sex. Eye-tumulus low, without coniform tubercles. 
Legs iii. and iv. in some cases larger than i. and ii., in others subequal; i. and i. each with one, and 
iii. and iv. with two tarsal claws, those of the last two pairs sometimes pectinate. 
The Cosmetide may be divided into the following subfamilies, of which the first 
(including the genera Gryne, Protus, Discosoma, &c.) is not at present known to be 
represented in Central America. They may be separated thus :— 
SUBFAMILIES. 
A. Tarsal claws of legs iii. andiv. pectinated . . © . . . ~~ « « [Drscosomina, nov. | 
B. Tarsal claws of legs iii. and iv. not pectinated. . . . . . - . . COSMETINA, nov. 
Subfam. COSMETIN A, nov. 
So far as the generic groups are concerned, C. L. Koch and E, Simon have based 
their subdivisions chiefly on the number of segments in the tarsi, especially of leg i. 
Sdrensen and Loman, while refraining from regarding these characters as of sufficient 
importance for the purpose, have not, so far as I can ascertain, proposed others any 
more satisfactory. It is quite true that the number of the tarsal segments varies very 
much in forms which otherwise are evidently closely allied; but, at the same time, so 
far as my experience goes, the number, at any rate in leg i., is quite constant in the 
same species, ¢. g. they are not liable to individual variation. 
There are two courses open to us: (1) either to “lump” together all the forms here 
described under the subfamily Cosmetine, and place them under one generic heading, 
Cosmetus, Perty; or (2) carry out the subdivision based on the varying number of 
tarsal segments consistently throughout its minute ramifications. The latter plan 
is adopted here, owing to the great inconvenience of tabulating a number of species in 
a single generic group. 
Of the genera indicated below, Erginus and Cynorta are perhaps the least satis- 
factory, because the relative size of legs iii. and iv., when compared with i. and iL, 
varies very much, and one is liable to find forms in which it is impossible to say 
whether they are “ markedly ” larger or not, 
