256 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



Koenenia as true legs, and are provided with the normal 3- 

 pronged claw. In the structure of these appendages, as well as 

 in that of the cephalothorax, Hubbardia and its relatives are 

 evidently more primitive than either the Thelyphonidae or the 

 Tarantulidae, both of which types have specialized beyond the 

 condition in which the Hubbardiidae remain. The f rmer groups 

 have, by some, been supposed to be connected by the Hubbardiidse, 

 since these possess a short caudal appendage, and in this respect 

 appear intermediate between tailless and long-tailed forms. The 

 possession of a tail is, perhaps, the chief reason why the Schizo- 

 notidae have been associated by Thorell and Kraepelin with the 

 Thelyphonidae as a family of a suborder called Uropygi, from 

 which the Tarantulidae were excluded. 



The more salient characters distinguishing the Hubbardiidae 

 from the Thelyphonidae have been contrasted by Kraepelin some 

 what as follows : 



FAMILY THELYPHONIDAE. 



Cephalothorax of a single piece to which all four pairs of legs are at 

 tached. 



Eyes present, in three widely separated clusters. 



Maxillae 5-jointed, consisting of coxa, trochanter, femur, tibia, and hand, 

 the last chelate, that is, with a movable finger. 



Flagellum of first pair of legs 9-jointed. 



Tarsi with two claws. t 



Abdominal appendage long, jointed. 



refuses to interpret the Linnsean species from the reference to Brown, 

 and wishes to take the Linnaean specimen (from the East Indies) as the 

 type of the genus. However, a continuation of the same course of reason 

 ing brings us to the view that the type of the Fabrician genus is the Fa- 

 brician specimen which Professor Kraepelin has examined and identified as 

 Phalangium palmatum Herbst, a congener of Brown's animal, if not, in 

 deed, the identical species. Whether we shall write Tarantula reniformis 

 Fabricius or Tarantula p almata (Herbst), is still another of the interest 

 ing questions attending this nomenctatorial complication. 



fin this, as in some other points, I am quite unable to agree with 

 Professor Kraepelin ; as far as I have been able to observe, the claws of 

 the three families are not notably different. The large paired claws are 

 certainly the same in all, and to the common base of these is immovably at 

 tached the much smaller third, or inferior, claw This last is best de 

 veloped in the Hubbardiidae, but neither in Hubbardia nor in Artacarus 

 does it correspond in size or direction to the claw of Schizomus, as fig 

 ured by Professor Kraepelin. This drawing is evidently inaccurate, as it 

 represents the claw as continuous with and immovably fixed to the end of 

 the joint, while in reality it is flexibly articulated. Owing to this last fact, 



