334 F. P. SMITH ON SOME BRITISH SPIDERS TAKEN IN 1908. 



numerically equivalent to what we should expect to find as the 

 complement to the combined males, estimating the proportion of 

 males to females on the averages of a number of allied species. 

 The most critical examination, however, failed to indicate any- 

 character which could be employed in separating the females into 

 two groups. The form of the caput of the male, which seems to 

 be the only tangible distinction between these two types, ought 

 not, in my opinion, to be too slavishly followed as a criterion of 

 specific value. I have carefully examined the male palpi in both 

 forms, and their structure appears absolutely identical. 



Explanation of Plate 25. 



Fig. 1. Epigynum, Cinifio similis, x 45. 



,,2. ,, ,, fenestralis, x 45. 



,, 3. Palpus, Agroeca proximo,, x 45. 



„ 4. Epigynum, Evarcha blancardi, x 90. 



„ 5. Palpus, Lophomma subaequalis. x 90. 



,, 6. ,, ,, laudation, x 90. 



„ 7. Epigynum, Bathyphantes nigrinus, x 90. 



„ 8. „ ,, pullatus, x 90. 



„ 9, 10, 11. Epigynum, Entelecara acuminata, three varia- 

 tions, x 180. 



„ 12, 13. ,, „ erythrojnis, two varia- 



tions, x 180. 

 14. „ ,, trifons, X 180. 



■31 



Journ. Qatkctt Microscopical Club, So: 2, Vol. A'., No. 03, November 1908. 



