12 



Terminology. Flagelliim, galea, serrula, lamina interior and exterior are 

 the names given by Hansen to the different organs of the antennae. Thorell (1882, 

 6. p. 38) names the galea ,,[)rocursus apicalis", corresponding to Balzan's "ai)otisi 

 apicali" and adds a note „Procursus apicalis digiti inferioris mandibulae inlerdum 

 galea appellatus fuit; nescio f[ua ratione". Later on (1891, 13. note p. 353) he sug- 

 gests „prociirsiis lextorius" as the name; though his criticism is well founded and 

 though the latter name is a very characteristic one, I prefer the short inditïerent 

 galea, as it has been accepted by most authors. Flagelliini and serrula have been 

 accepted by almost all naturalists, working on this group, and so Ihey are here, 

 the only ditference being, that the serula is named serrula e.xierinr to distinguish it 

 from the serrula interior of most of the Hemictenodactyli. Hansen's lamina interior 

 and exterior is preferred to Thorell's and Balzan's velum inferius and superius; 

 lamina exterior is a good and characteristic name and so is lamina interior in 

 such a form as Chelifer Geof., but cannot properly be attached to the serrula of 

 the immovable linger in such a genus as Chthonius C. K., even if the two organs 

 are homologous. This organ is properly called serrula interior to distinguish it from 

 the serrula exterior of the movable linger. I use in the following the exjjressions 

 lamina and serrula interior indiscriminately in reference to the structure of the 

 organ. In genera like Ideobisium Balz., Olpium L. K. or Chelifer Geof. we can use 

 the name, which seems to be most obvious according to the development of the 

 basal plate-shaped or the distal more serruli-formed portion. 



II. Structure of the antennae. 



In the following I will give a description of as well as a comparison between 

 the moditications of the organs, which adorn the antennae of the Chelonethi, going 

 from Chthonius C. K. to Chelifer Geof. Though the most important facts, respecting 

 this theme are found in Hansen's paper (1894, 49. pp.205 — 236), the following con- 

 tribution will certainly be useful, because the arrangement of the facts is different, 

 and because the number of forms examined or referred to is much bigger than 

 that, on which Hansen based his investigation ; to this paper references will be 

 found everywhere. 



Size etc. The antennae vary very much in size; they are as a rule com- 

 paratively large in the Hemictenodactyli , especially in Chthonius terribilis n. sp. 

 (PI. I, fig. 1 a) and Microcreagris gigas. Balz. (12. pi. 12, tig. 34 a), being here half 

 as broad and almost as long as the céphalothorax; they are much smaller in the 

 Panctenodactyli especially in Garypus L. Kock and Chiridium Menge; but the differ- 

 ences in size will be found to be almost as well marked between the antennae 

 of a Chthonius tenibilis n. sp. and an Ideobisium Balz. sp. both belonging to the 

 Hemictenodactyli, as between those of an Olpium L. Kock sp. and Ideobisium Balz, sp., 

 the former belonging to the Panctenodactyli, the latter to the Hemictenodactyli. The 

 space, left between the lingers, when they are closed, provide interesting modifica- 



