1908.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 245 



in front with a spine; tibiae and metatarsi I and II armed below as 

 usual, the spines small and weak; tarsi and metatai-si I and II scopulate 

 as usual; the scopulce of tarsi III and IV divided by rather narrow 

 median setose bands. 



For structure of epigynum see PL XVIII, fig, 8. 



Total length, 22 mm. Length of cephalothorax, 11 mm.; width, 

 7.8 mm. 



Length of leg I, 28.1 mm.; tib. + pat., 10 mm.; met., 6 mm. 



Length of leg II, 25.4 mm. 



Length of leg III, 25 mm. 



Length of leg IV, 32.1 mm.; tib. + pat., 10 mm.; met., 9.2 mm. 



Male. — Coloration nearly as in female. 



Chelicerce above with light yellow-gray pubescence; pubescence on 

 distal portion dark, but fringe along furrow light gray. 



Patella I and II armed both in front and behind ; spines on tibia3 and 

 metatarsi I and II comparatively long, not reduced as in female. 

 Patella and tibia about equal in length and stoutness, together as long as 

 the tarsus which is distinctly thicker. 



For structure of palpal organ see PI. XVIII, fig. 8. 



Total length, 20.5 mm. Length of cephalothorax, 10.5 mm.; width, 

 S mm. 



Length of leg I, 35.7 mm. ; tib. + pat., 12.2 mm. ; met., 8.8 mm. 



Length of leg II, 33 mm. 



Length of leg III, 30.4 mm. 



Length of leg IV, 40 mm. ; tib. + pat., 12.5 mm. ; met., 11.6 mm. 



Svn. — 1844. Lycosa ruricola Hentz, J. Bost. Nat. Hist., p. 387. 

 1875. Lycosa lenta Hentz, Sp. of U. S., p. 27, PI. 3, figs. 1, 2, 3, 4. 



. Lycosa ruricola Hentz, ibid., p. 28, PI. 3, figs. 5, 6. 



1890. Lycosa lenta, Marx, Proc. U. S. N. M., 12. 



1892. Lycosa ruricola Hentz, Marx, Proc. Ent. Soc. W., II, p. 160. 



1898. Lycosa lenta Hentz, Simon, Hist. Nat. des. Araign, II, p. 333. 



1900. Lycosa lenta Hentz, Banks, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., p. 538. 



Locality. — Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina. 



Known localities. — Pennsylvania, North Carolina !, South Carolina, 

 Alabama!, Georgia, Florida. 



It would seem probable that Hentz did not in all cases distinguish 

 this form from his erratica, and that his account applies partly to the 

 latter species. What he regarded as the typical form, however, was a 

 burrow-making species, although, like carolinensis, etc., found wander- 

 ing about and hiding under stones, for in his discussions of erratica he 

 says: "This species I formerly supposed to be a variety of L. lenta, 

 but it was always found wandering and never in holes. I therefore 



