HANSEN: ON SIX Sl'KClF.S OF KOENENIA. I 97 



keep them in this rather weak tluid for a considerable time; 

 after this treatment most of the specimens are well preserved 

 for systematic study, being extended as in life and having the 

 legs tolerably Hexible. The outlines of the figures in our paper 

 of 1 897 were made from such specimens not treated with cau- 

 stic potash — I have re-examined the type-specimen of my for- 

 mer figures of the head, and both this and another chosen at 

 random specimen show my drawings to be correct. (On pi. 4 

 in this paper I have figured the anterior part of two specimens 

 of Ä'. aiigusta in order to exhibit the extreme difference in the 

 shape of the céphalothorax in a contracted specimen and in an 

 extended one, and no specimen of this species has been treated 

 with caustic potash. I believe that if an animal or a part of it 

 is to be figured to exhibit tlie natural shape, one must select 

 naturally extended specimens in preference to such as are con- 

 tracted by strong liquids. Further, the frontal part of the head 

 between the anterior edge of the dorsal scutum and the mouth 

 in Burner's fig. i a is retracted and deformed to a degree which 

 the living animal is scarcely able to produce by its muscles. 



His fig. 2 which also is »etwas schematisch» (I am unable 

 to understand why the figures mentioned are drawn diagramma- 

 tically), is incorrect in the arrangement of tiie hairs on the an- 

 terior cephalic sternum. He describes these hairs, mentioning 

 eight in the posterior row, while on specimens re-examined by 

 me only five or six are present; and the five hairs which in his 

 figure form the anterior row are placed otherwise in nature: the 

 median hair is close to the posterior row and very far from 

 the hypostoma, the two other pairs are arranged in two oblique 

 lines directed outwards and moderately or considerably forwards. 

 And as the number and arrangement of these hairs furnish ex- 

 cellent specific characters, a drawing such as his fig. 2 is rather 

 misleading. 



The most interesting point in Mr. Burner's paper is his new 

 theory that the thorax is not constituted only of the two sepa- 

 rate segments bearing the two last pairs of legs (the interpreta- 

 tion given in our previous paper), but that the posterior part of 

 the head bearing the fourth pair of appendages (second pair of 

 legs in Arachnids) also must l)e referred to the thorax. He be- 



5 



