217 
fairly correctly shown the »flagellum« in Chernes 
Hahniti C. Koch, but quotes in good faith the strange 
flagellum of Stecker in Ch. cimicoides F., being in 
reality the same as Ch. Hahnii (see Simon op. cit. p. 
39, and Arthr. Dan. p. 544), a fact he ought to have 
been aware of (see later on); Balzan above all has 
given descriptions and drawings (Rev. dei Pseudose.) of 
it in a quantity of forms and has carefully described 
»flagellum« of most of the species in »Voy. d. M. E. 
Simons. 
Hereupon it is somewhat startling to see Gaubert 
in the year 1892 (op. cit. p. 122) writing about »fla- 
gellum«: »formé par un tige mince qui se ramifie en 
plusieurs branches, simples ou ramifiées, recouvertes 
par des poils disposés regulierement.« Thus Stecker's 
fanciful formation is reappearing once more, most 
likely copied from Simon (op. cit. p. 4) without, 
however, informing us of it; in any other way it 
is not possible to agree so fully in so obvious a mistake. 
An author as Gaubert, the treatise of which pretending 
all along to be based on own investigations, ought not 
to do such a thing, and he does, moreover, display his 
ignorance both of Croneberg quoted by himself (p. 84) 
and of the representation, right in the main, of the 
above mentioned systematic authors. 
In this treatise I have carefully drawn »flagellum« in 
5 main genera (Chelifer, Olpium, Ideobisium, Obtsium 
and Chthonius); | consider a further description of the 
different forms to be superfluous. 
I take it for more than improbable that »flagellum«, 
according to its structure, can be an olfactory organ; 
on the contrary, it is possible that these sete are a 
kind of tactile hairs, but the proof must be delivered 
by exhibiting a nerve to their basis. 
2) On the large chele of Chernes cimicoides F. 
