31 



(45. pj). 421-424; laf. X, figs, â-6) given descriptions as well as drawings holli ol' tlie 

 maxillae and the labrum in "Chelifer Geol." as well as ^'Clwrnes Menge". I can 

 nol agree witli him in many details as well as in some interpretations, as is easily 

 seen, when com])aring my foregoing descriptions with those of Croneberg; I can 

 al'lirm that Cronebergs drawings of these organs in "(J/itr/ics Menge" are very good 

 and exhaustive, while tliose of "C/ie/j/er Geof." in iiis earlier paper are of less 

 value. Stschelkanovtzeir has recently dealt with the structure of these organs in 

 Ch. cimicoidcs F. (1903. 67. pp.320 — 324). Though I disagree with the statements 

 of this author in several questions, I will only deal with a single question liere, 

 which falls within the scope of these investigations. On account of the connection 

 l)elween the lahruni and the articulate membrane of the antennae he writes (67. 

 p. 322): "Folglich setzt die obere Wand des Rostrums sich keineswegs bis zu den 

 dreieckigen Platten fort, die Croneberg für die paarige Basis des Rostrums hält, 

 und die in Wirkliciikeit aber die Dorsal llächen der inneren und hinteren gegen 

 einander stehenden Ecken der Coxalglieder vorstellen." His criticism of Crone- 

 bergs triangular plates is according to my investigations (cf. above» partly right, but 

 if my interpretation, that the labrum of Chelifer Geof. is continued behind the 

 insertion of the antennae beneath the lateral wings of the maxillae, which is fairly 

 supported by the structure of the labrum in the Heinictenoductyli, holds good, the 

 above quoted hypothesis falls to the ground. 



VII. Concluding Remarks. 



Though my studies of the labrum and the maxillae do not go into the minute 

 details and as a rule only concern the outer appearance, it will by comparing their 

 structure in the ditl'erent genera easily be realised, in the first place that their is 

 a fundamental ditïerence in structure between these organs in genera like Chtlwniiis 

 C. K. and Chelifer Geof, which stand widely apart, and in the second place that 

 the gap between the two is at least partly fdled by intermediary forms. It is also 

 evident, that the maxillae and labrum, as well as tlieir lyriform organs, become 

 in similarity to the antennae more complicated in structure, going from Chthoniiis 

 C. K. to Chelifer Geof. A detailed study of these organs from a systematic as well 

 as from a comparative-morphological view is recommended to futine students of 

 the Chelonethi. 



4. Palps. 



Shape. The shape of the pafps varies in a considerable degree in the dif- 

 ferent forms of this grouj); tliey usually show differences between the members 

 of the subfamilies, genera and even species on account of an often marked sexual 

 difTerence. Their shape is oidv seldom characteristic of the familv, as is the case 



