284 SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF 



was found by himself abundantly in Corsica, He also 

 gives Italy and Provence as localities, but the former 

 of these two is, I conclude, given as being Cost as 

 locality for the spider described by this latter author 

 in Fauna d. Megn. Napl. Araclm., p. 14 ; the other 

 locality (Provence) would seem to have been doubt- 

 fully given. On careful examination of the Corsican 

 examples (male and female), and on comparing them 

 with the male and female of N. meridionaUs, Cambr., 

 as well as the description and figure given by Costa, I 

 feel no doubt but that M. Sioion is right in according 

 to the Corsican species M. Costa's name — meridionaUs. 

 It agrees, I think, decidedly better, on the whole, 

 with Costa's figure and description than the species 

 to which (I.e.) I had allotted the specific name meri- 

 dionaUs conferred by that author. Nor had I any 

 hesitation in accepting the determination made by 

 M. Simon, in Bull. Ent. Sac. Fr., 1873, ser. v. tom. 

 3, c. ; that my N. meridionaUs $ is the female of 

 IS. Manderstjernce, Auss., the more esj)ecially as 

 since the publication of my description I have 

 received from the same locality (Mentone) not 

 only the male of the spider described by myself 

 (I.e.), but also the type of M. Ausserer's descrip- 

 tion of N. Manderstjerna (found at Nice), and 

 believe these to be identical in species. There is, 

 indeed, a difference in the, apparent, relative positions 

 and colour of the eyes of the two spiders, but no more 

 than may be well accounted for by the condition of 

 M. Ausserer's type (most kindly lent to me for exami- 

 nation by its owner. Dr. Ludwig Koch) ; this 

 example is much shrunken, having the appearance of 

 having been allowed to get dry and then to have been 



