54 



tlic structure of the antennae; l)ul also, that tlie cleft between the two (Chthoniiis 

 C. K. and Chelifer Geof.) is filled uj) by a good many intermediary forms. For if 

 we examine a numlier of organs, we will scarcely find similaritj^ between their 

 structure in Chelifer Geof. and Chthoniiis C. K., but intermediary forms will be 

 found by the examination of Olpiuin L. K. and Ideoroncus Bal/. This is not only 

 the case, as far as the structure of the antennae and the shape of the body is con- 

 cerned; but we observe the same in the structure of the maxillae and their lyri- 

 forni organs (cf. pp. 24-31), in the structure of the stigmata, but especially in the 

 variations of the legs. It appears thus natural to regard Chthonius C. K. and Che- 

 lifer Geof. (perhaps Chiridiiim Menge) as standing most a|)art from each other in 

 a systematic sense within the wliole order of the Chelonethi; but also tliat there is 

 a great affinity between Olpiiim L. K. and Ideoroncus Balz., the former belonging to 

 the Panctenodadyli, the latter to the Hemictenodactgli, perhaps greater than that 

 between either and its more distant relation in its own suborder. 



As this is the case, I rather doubt, if it was quite practical and well founded 

 to use a single division in a small group like the Chelonethi, in which the only 

 four families are so excellently cliaracterized as those of our order; but I use the 

 division, like Hansen, because it is once established and the most natural (cf. 49. 

 p. 230), if we wish any main division (cf. the foot-note p. 58). Di fièrent authors liave 

 shared dilïerent opinions about the relation of the two suborders to each other; 

 a few, f. inst. Stschelkanovtzeff (1903. 67. p. 326 note), regard the Panctenodactijli 

 as the more primitive group, while others like Hansen (49. p. 225) and Borner 

 (1902. 65. p. 451) regard the Hemidenodactyli as the more primitive. I believe 

 that more facts and a more detailed investigation of several organs in different 

 forms are necessary before settling definitively this question as well as several 

 others, concerning tlie systematic position of some genera and subfamilies. 



I am now going to discuss the position of tlie families and other systematic 

 groups in Balzan's and Hansen's systems respectively. The former subdivided his 

 Panctenodactijli, which only included one family, tlie Cheliferidae Tom., into two 

 subfamilies, identical to Simon's viz. the Garypinae Sim. and the Cheliferinae Sim. 

 The main characters of Ihe former group are (12. p. 534) "Oculi duo vel quatuor" 

 and "Pedes ultimi et penultimi Iroclianterinis praediti"'; this group also includes 

 Chiridium Menge. The latter group is in the main characterized in the following 

 manner (12. pp. 509 — 510), "Oculi duo vel nuUi " and "Pedum omnia paria tro- 

 chanterinis instructa". This system is quite natural, if accepting Simon's interpre- 

 tation of the joints of the legs; but if we follow Hansen, and we are obliged to 

 do so (cf. p. 36 and p. 95), we must necessarily exclude Chiridium Meng, from the 

 Garypinae Sim. on account of its undivided femur I and If, and its undivided larsi. 

 The dill'erences between Balzans two subfamilies become thus according to Hansen, 

 who gives tliem the rank of families viz. the Cheliferidae Hans. (Hag.) and the 

 Garypidae Hans, for the former "The femora of the 2 anterior pair of legs undivided 

 or having but a basal trochantin. All tarsi 1-jointed. None or two eyes". And 



