THE TRIANGLE SPIDER. 



649 



contact with either of the radii. She then retraces her steps along 

 the second radius to a point (6) nearly under that whence she started. 

 The double line has shortened itself considerably ; any slack she draws 

 in, and then, turning about, with her head toward the apex, she,makes 

 a second attachment with her spinners close pressed against the radius. 



Fig. 8. 



The framework is completed, and the first 

 interradial line (/') has been made. The 

 subsequent movements of the spider are 

 indicated by the figures 1 to 9. and by the 

 interrupted lines and arrows. The dashed 

 line 1. 2, 3, 4, shows the route which the 

 spider followed in order to commence 

 the second interradial. The dotted line 

 4, 5, represents her track while pulling 

 out the first section of the interradial 

 line ; the dashed line 5, 6, shows her re- 

 turn to the proper point for attaching it. 

 The dotted line 6, 7, and the dashed line 

 7, 8, in like manner indicate the track 

 over which the spider passed in forming 

 the second section of the second interradial. The dotted line 8, 9, shows the progress of the 

 spider toward making the third section. The net is considerably reduced, but the spider is of 

 about her usual size. 



This clone, she again hangs from the radius, draws out the viscid line, 

 and advances toward the apex, crosses at 7 to the third radius (H'"), 

 retraces her steps thereon to 8, and makes a third attachment. She 

 then repeats the same process upon the third radius, and, in Fig. 8, is 

 represented as having finished about one-half of the line. 



It must be borne in mind that the spider is not reduced, like the 

 net ; and also that, to save space, the interradial spaces are not so wide 



with a fine floss, as with the other Ciniflonidw, but simply double lines, the two strands 

 being from 5^7 to -jinro of an inch apart. 



My error exemplifies the utter insufficiency of property and function as a guide to 

 structure, and enforces the general principle in natural history, that nothing should be 

 stated as a fact that has not been verified by observation. It was his avoidance of this 

 kind of error which rendered the work of the late Prof. Jeffries Wyman so remark- 

 ably trustworthy. 



Since the foregoing was in type, I have reamed from Mr. J. H. Emerton, of Salem, 

 that some of his observations upon the structure and economy of this spider do not 

 accord with those here recorded. It is to be hoped that the views of this accomplished 

 and enthusiastic arachnologist will be incorporated with the new edition of Hentz's papers, 

 which he is preparing for publication by the Boston Society of Natural History. 



