216 
as in boldness in setting forth an interpretation. — All 
over he figures a rather thick, longer or sherter stalk, 
carrving in Chthonius and Megathis rather thick, hairy 
branches on the one side towards the apex, and some 
of these branches are, f. ex. in Chthonius Rayı, branched 
once more. As seen in my figures of Chthonius Rayt 
(Tab. V, fig. 12), Obistum muscorum (Tab. V, fig. 9), 
Chelifer granulatus (Tab. IV, fig. 10) a. s. o. we find 
but a row or a tuft (that is to say 2 short, close rows) 
of sete (on the quoted figures marked f.) which are 
either rather thin and ciliated (fie. 12) or a little flattened 
with exceedingly short hairs along the one edge or 
along both edges at the apex, but a stalk is never 
existing at all. Stecker's figures are altogether extra- 
ordinarily unlike reality, as well as the interpretation 
»Riechstäbchen« appears to me most audacious. 
Simon gives (op. cit. p. 4) the name of »flagellum« 
to these »Riechstäbchen« and notes on his drawing of 
the mandibles of Chthonius Rayı (Pl. XVII, fig. 8) the 
flagellum figured by Stecker (op. cit. Taf. II, fig. 11), 
while I am unable to find this unlucky loan mentioned 
in his work, Stecker’s figure being so most startlingly 
false that it would have been impossible for Simon to 
make his drawing of »flagellum« to be even up to details 
like the not existing ramification figured by Stecker, if 
it had not been a copy. I do not understand, however, 
how Simon has effected flagellum on the mandible of 
Garypus litoralis L. Koch shown on Pl. XVII, fig. 7. 
In Arthr. Dan. I have criticised (p. 525) Stecker and 
Simon, I have asserted that Menge in his ancient work 
»Über Scheerenspinnen«, 1855, has seen and drawn 
these sete, that likewise TOmésvary Ödön, 1882, has 
figured them, and in Zoologia Danica I have given a 
correct delineation of these sete in Chelifer and Obisium. 
Croneberg has later on (op. cit. p. 482, Taf. X, fig. 7) 
