Tertiary Spiders and Opilionids. 231 



FAMILY DRASSID.E. 



Characters of the family: — Eyes eight, heterogeneous, forming 

 two rows of four eyes each. Anterior median eyes alone diurnal. 

 Maxillary lobes with a distinct obliquely transverse depression. 

 Tarsi with two claws and ungual tufts. Anterior spinnerets far 

 apart. Colulus wanting. 



Genus Palaeodrassus, new. 



With the characters of the family. The appearance of the 

 spinnerets makes it fairly certain that these spiders belong to the 

 same family with recent Drassids, but it would be impossible 

 either to place them under any recent genus or to separate the 

 genus Palaodrassus from recent genera. It is very likely that in 

 reality the species described under this genus belong to several 

 genera. Four of the species may be readily separated from each 

 other by the order of their legs which is 4123 in P. ingenuus, 4213 

 in P. intcritiis and P. hesternus and 4321 in P. cockerelli. The 

 order of legs in P. ftorissanti is not known. Genotype : P. ingenuus. 



Palaeodrassus ingenuus (Scudder) {Textfigures 5, 6). 



= Titanoeca ingenua Scudder, Tertiary Insects, 1890. P. 69. 

 PI. II, figs. 29 and 32. 



Four females from Florissant in the Scudder collection of the 

 ]\Iuseum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard University, num- 

 bered 9792, 11203, 13520, 14031 are mentioned in Scudder's 

 work. Of these specimens however numbers 11203 (now No. 

 82) and 13520 (now No. 83) are the obverse and reverse of the 

 same specimen, wdiile No. 9792 (now No. 81) seems to belong to 

 a dififerent species, yet is too poorly preserved to warrant separa- 

 tion. I have not seen specimen 1403 1. 



Scudder's description of this species refers entirely to Nos. 

 11203 and 13520 and is correct. He made a mistake in placing it 

 in the genus Titanoeca and in the family Agelenidse to which that 

 genus does not belong. I have already pointed out that the 

 absence of a cribellum and calamistrum makes the retaining of 

 this species in the genus Titanoeca impossible. Nor do I think 

 that there is any likelihood of its belonging to the family Agel- 



