220 Alexander Petninkcvitch, 



structures we may reasonably assume that Paraftus did not possess 

 them, but the absence of a character is in itself not a sufficient 

 proof, because in no case are all structures preserved. 



Assuming" then that Parattus actually did not possess these 

 structures we may place it in the division Ecribellatae. This divi- 

 sion is composed of 28 families in recent spiders. What are the 

 distinctive characters of the Family Attidai? i) Presence of a 

 single spiracle immediately in front of the spinnerets; 2) Two 

 tarsal claws and ungual tufts; 3) Eight eyes in three or four 

 rows, anterior median eyes by far the largest, eyes of second row 

 minute; 4) All eyes of the diurnal type; 5) Clypeus vertical; 6) 

 Absence of cokilus ; 7) Body often covered with scales. Of these 

 characters the relative size and position of the eyes is the most 

 conspicuous and usually allows at once to recognize an Attid in 

 a recent spider. How about Parattus? The eyes of the second 

 row are not discernible in any of the three species. Scudder 

 describes for Parattus rcsurrectus the "eyes of the second row 

 from one-eighth to one-tenth the size of those of the first row, 

 situated behind and within the middle anterior pair, so that lines 

 drawn through the middle of the large and small ones would meet 

 in a right angle behind the small ones and leave them distant from 

 each other by about their own diameter; the outer edge of either 

 of the small ones is behind the inner edge of one of the large 

 ones" (p. 54). No similar position of the eyes of the second row 

 is known to occur in any of the hundreds of recent Attidje. If 

 the little impressions which Scudder described as eyes of the 

 second row actually represent eyes then Parattus is not an Attid 

 at all. Similarly, if the anterior median eyes are equal in size to 

 or scarcely larger than the anterior lateral eyes, then, as Scudder 

 himself points ovit in his definition of the genus Parattus, this 

 character separates Parattus "from all members of the Family." 

 But the eyes of the third row being "not discernible" in Par- 

 attus resurrcctns, "doubtful" in Parattus latitatus and preserved 

 only in the otherwise poorly preserved specimen of Parattus 

 cvocatus, in which the eyes of the second row according to Scud- 

 der himself are "indiscernible," what value can be placed in the 

 generic character when the corresponding family character is not 

 in evidence? 



Of the other six characters of the Familv Attid:e enumerated 



