171 



20. Chelifcr megasoma Dad. 

 1897. ehernes megasoma E. Daday (14.) p. 476, lab. XI, figs, lo— 17. 

 The body is elongate and somewhat depressed, finely granular; céphalothorax 

 longer than broad. The galea without branches slightly extending beyond terminal 

 hair. Palps clumsy and a little shorter than body, granular with almost simple 

 hairs; the femur is 3 times longer than ])road, as long and as broad as the tibia, 

 which has lateral outlines moderately convex; the hand is lo broader than the 

 tibia and much longer than the fingers. This species from Friedrich-Wilhelms- 

 hafen, German New Guinea, is according to Daday nearly related to Ch. nodosus 

 Schranck, the main differences being found in the antennae; to judge of its affinity 

 is quite impossible on account of the very imperfect description ; his drawing of 

 the antenna (fig. 17) is incorrect in all details as well as in points of the greatest 

 importance, viz. serrula basally fused, dislally free, and flagelluni consists of five 

 hairs, of which the median is pinnate. 



21. Chelifer nocliilimanus Tom. 



1882. Ö. Tömösvary (40.) p. 244. 



1884. Ö. Tömösvary (8.) p. 26, tab. I, fig. 14. 



1889. Ectoceras noduUmamis E. Daday (11.) pp. 173— 174, tab. IV, figs. 3, 9. 



1905. Lamprocliernes nodulimanus E. Ellingsen (22.) pp. 3 — 6. 

 Distinct ocular spots; scarcely longer than broad with transverse stripes 

 "antrorsum curvatis"; minutely granular with long, slender, almost simple hairs. 

 Palps much longer than the body and partly smooth, partly granular; trochanter 

 is posteriorly bigibbose, as a prominent dorsal protuberance is found; the femur, 

 which is about twice as long as broad, is shorter and narrower than the tibia, 

 which on the upper-inner side has a very strong, conical protuberance, somewhat 

 rounded. Hand, which is much broader than the tibia, is considerably higher than 

 broad and 15 longer than finger, which, when closed, gape in a considerable degree. 

 Daday has identified this species with Ch. macrochelatus Tom. and gives his 

 combined Ch. macrochelatus-nodulimanus a very wide range, viz. Dalmatia(?), South- 

 America, Asclianti and Sumatra; Ellingsen (1902. 20. p. 154) has pointed out, that 

 the two species are well distinguished from each other; the same author has 

 recently identified a species from Brazil with Ch. nodulimanus Tom., and accordingly 

 regards the European locality as a wrong or accidental one (22. p. 5). These cir- 

 cumstances taken info consideration, the statements about the occurrence of this 

 species in Sumatra e. t. c. do not count in the least; Daday's specimen from Asia 

 certainly belongs to another species. 



22. Chelifer cocophilus Sim. 

 (PI. Ill, figs. 9 a-b). 

 1901. E. Simon (19.) pp. 79—80. 

 üislinct ocular spots; cephalothora.v almost as long as broad, with two di.stinct 



22* 



