36^ 



sliidents ol' Ihis group. The older of Ihc (wo principal Iheorics '), whicii was 

 established by Simon (1879. 5. pp. 6-7), was accepted by most authors especially 

 Balzan and Gaubert (cf. 49. p. 225); the newer was set forth by Hansen 1884 (9. 

 pp. 518-520) and again 1894 (49. pp. 223-227) and accepted by Borner ((i8. 300-302), 

 who went a little further. Simon regards the divided femur of Chelifer Geof. and 

 the undivided of Chiridiwn Menge as homologous to his undivided femur of Gary- 

 pus L. K., Ohisiiim C. K. and all other main genera, the same joint, which Hansen 

 names the basal femoral part; the tarsus of all these genera become consequently 

 two- or three-jointed, and Chiridiiiin has as far as the structure of the femur is 

 concerned more similarity to Garypiis L. K. than to Chelifer Geof. Hansen -) regards 

 the femur of Chelifer Geoï. and Chiridiiiin 'Menge as homologous to the basal + the 

 tibial femoral part of Garypiis L. K. and the other genera; from this interpretation 

 it follows that the tarsus of the Garypus I>. K. etc. is one- or two-jointed, never three- 

 jointed and that Chiridiiim Menge is the only genus with an undivided femur; it 

 also follows as a result, that the similarity between the leg I of Chiridiiim Menge 

 and Chelifer Geof., which have both undivided tarsi, is greater than that of the 

 former genus and Garypus L. K., especially when taken into account, that the divi- 

 sion of the femur is more complete in the latter than in Chelifer Geof. Hansen 

 has not expressed himself about the possible homology between the trochanlin of 

 Chelifer Geof. and the basal femoral part of Garypus !.. K., while Horner (1903. 68. 

 pp. 300 — 302) seems to regard as well established the homology between these joints. 

 To prove his theory Hansen sets forth several convincing facts especially taken 

 from the shape of the joints, the articulations and the position of the "lyrilbrm" 

 fissures; with regard to this I refer you to his paper (1894. 49. pp. 223— 227). A few 

 facts, relating to this subject and taken from the muscles, have been elucidated by 

 Borner. I will add a few observations, which make Hansen's interpretation, if 

 possible, even more secure, and which shows that Borners opinion, regarding the 

 homology of the trochantin of Chelifer Geof. and the basal femoral part of Garypus 

 L. K., may be regarded as very probable 



If we examine the first pair of tlie femora of f. inst. Chelifer lampropsalis L. K., 

 we will find the following structure. The trochantin is about as long as the 

 distal femoral part and much deeper; the whole distal surface is obliquely cut olV 

 establishing a wide cavity, facing forwards, upwards and outwards, for the insertion 

 of the distal portion ; on account of the position of this cavity the ventral posterior 

 portion of the margin is prolonged distally in contrast to the dorsal, anterior one. 



') Schiödte (1851. 31. p. 24) interprets the legs of Blothnis spelaeiis Sch. in a mmiiier ditTering 

 IVüin that of later autliors, for he regards the tibial part of tlie femur as a real tibia, and consequently 

 gets an undivided femur and a two-jointed tibia in the two first pair of legs. 



-') Keyserling seems to have shared a similar opinion regarding the interpretation of the femoral 

 part and probablj' without any knowledge of Hansen's earlier paper: he writes in his description of 

 Olpiiim longiventer Keys. (41. 1885—80, p. 51), that the two tirst pair of legs have the femora divided 

 into two distinct portions in contrast to the two last pair, tlie femurs of which are only indistinctly 

 divided. 



