23 



Chelifer snilpturatiis Lew. passes the course of moulting in a nidus, remaricable by 

 the arrangenienl and structure of its threads (cf. With, 21. p. 122|. In the collec- 

 tions of the British Museum I found a label mounted with a number of species of 

 Garypiis Floridensis Bks. (1 c?, 2 young animals and 4 full-grown Ç, of which the 

 two carried an egg-bundle attached to the base of the abdomen), showing that this 

 species constructs similar cocoons, the purpose of which is yet doubtful; the passage 

 on the label reads thus "Mustique Island. June. Sandy sea-shore, under drift wood; 

 each one in a thin round Hat silken nidus, about ' :; inch in diameter, attached to 

 lower side of log close together". 



Menge started the theory (83. p. 14), that the Chelonethi have spinning glands 

 and spinning organs placed at the base of the abdomen (cf. Simon 5. p. 3 and 

 Hansen 7. p. 109, 9. p. 526). Berlkau(44.) and Croueberg (45.), the former examining 

 Ohisium 111., the latter Chelifer Geof., proved that the glands, mentioned by Menge, 

 are not spinning glands, but accessory glands, belonging to the sexual organs, but 

 they pointed out, that a pair of big glands, which debouch on the little terminal 

 elevation or the galea of the movable finger of the antennae respectively, are found 

 in Ihe céphalothorax, and thai these glands may probably be regarded as the spin- 

 ning glands. Hansen has later on examined the manner, in which the terminal 

 ducts of the spinning glands are arranged on the little elevation already alluded to 

 of the movable finger of the antenna in Ohisium muscorum C. K. (49. pp. 219 — 220, 

 tab. V, fig. 11), observations, which I have been able personally to confirm. Supino 

 (52. p. 605) has nevertheless recently dismissed Croneberg's conclusion and accepted 

 Menge's old theory, that the spinning apparatus is placed at the base of the 

 abdomen, but he i.s certainly wrong. The spinning is at least one of the functions 

 of the antennae, but personal observations are of course wished for. 



On account of the manner, in which the glands of the céphalothorax debouch, 

 I think like the three above mentioned naturalists. But our principal question 

 remains: „what difference in function corresponds to the difference in structure?" 

 Croueberg says in reference to this subject (45. p. 427): "Die ganze Ausrüstung der 

 Scheere, welche für das Ordnen der Fäden viel besser geeignet erscheint als zu 

 Angriffszwecken, sowie auch die weiche Beschaffenheit der Endpapille scheint mir 

 ebenfalls zu Gunsten dieser Ansicht zu sprechen, und schliesslich wäre auch zu 

 beachten, dass sich für ein Spinnorgan kaum eine unpassendere Stelle gewählt 

 werden könnte, als gerade an der Basis des Abdomens." This quotation refers to 

 Chelifer cimicoides Fab., and this naturalist is probably right, that the antennae of 

 this group are not quite well adapted to a predatory function. But if we examine 

 the antennae of a Chthonias C. K. or an Obisium 111., we are bound to be struck 

 by the manner, in which their powerful chelae as well as their serrulae, which 

 are always crossing each other like a pair of scissors (at least in Ohisium III., 

 when examined alive), appear fitted for predatory purposes. It seems to me to be 

 at least possible, that the differences in structure of these organs are at least to a 

 certain degree explained, if we accept, tlinl lln' :inlciiii;ie of the Cheliferinae Sim. 



