Spiders of Victoria. 103 



The Maxillae are as broad as long, arched, smooth, and 

 rounded in front. The Lip is broader than long, slightly rounded 

 in front and narrowed towards the base. 



The Sternum is shield-shaped, smooth, and slightly raised. It 

 has a deeply cut recurved front margin, and is thinly sprinkled 

 with long upstanding bristles. There are no prominences opposite 

 the coxae. 



The Abdomen is 1 mm. longer than broad, rounded in front, 

 square at sides, and slightly tapering to an obtuse point at the 

 rear. In the space surrounding the spinnerets are deep 

 transverse wrinkles. 



Two large protrudent pinnacles spring almost perpendicularly 

 from near the front margin, and here the abdomen is rather 

 thinner than at the rear. 



There are no small teeth on the abdomen, and the depressions 

 are very indistinct, six in two rows on the back being most 

 apparent. 



On the underside the belly is protuberant between the spinnerets 

 and the epigyne. It is smooth and shiny, and slightly mottled, 

 outside this it is deeply wrinkled. The hairs are short and up- 

 right, of a pale colour. The epigyne is of the stylus type, the 

 pendant being four times as long as it is broad at the base. 



The Legs and Palpi are smooth and lightly haired. The two 

 front femurs are thicker than the remainder. The patellar, 

 tibial and metatarsal joints are notably flattened. The metatarsi 

 and tarsi of the front paii- of legs have thick rows of bristles on 

 each side. 



From the measurements below, this species will be seen to be 

 larger than either C. bispinosa, Keys., or C. specisosa, L. Koch. 



Another female, rather longer in the abdomen, without the 

 pinnacles, and wanting the dark, transverse field on the upper 

 side of the abdomen, otherwise resembles the above in every 

 detail. I have made this a variety under the name of atuber- 

 culata. They were both found in the same neighbourhood, the 

 Government Nursery, at Lower Macedon, by Mr. J. Memory. 



The presence of this pair of large tubercles is one of the 

 differences by which M. Simon distinguishes his genus 

 Poecilopachys from Cyrtarachne, Thor., but these specimens are 

 otherwise quite similar, and may have been from the same brood. 



