ON EUROPEAN SPIDERS. 69 
Hyptiotes, as far as I am aware, does not possess a single characteristic 
in common. 
As early as 1856 1) I classed Hyptiotes or Mithras among the Epei- 
roidæ, and have in a later paper *) developed and expounded the grounds 
for that view. As I there endeavoured to show, the genus Hyptiotes ap- 
proaches more nearly to Uloborus than to any other known genus of spi- 
ders, while at the same time by the shorter and robuster form of its body, 
its short and broad maxillæ, its only slightly tapering extremities, its stou- 
ter tarsal and palpal claws, its two teeth on the inferior tarsal claw, it 
stands in nearer relation to the typical Epeiroidze than do the species of 
Uloborus. The deviations from them, which Hyptiotes exhibits, such as 
the presence of the infra-mammillary organ and calamistrum, the distribu- 
tion of the eyes into two rows diverging at the ends, it has also almost all 
in common with Uloborus. A remarkable analogy between Hyptiotes and 
the species of Uloborus, with which I am acquainted, is displayed in the 
fact that the hairy covering on the sides of the back of the abdomen are 
conglomerated into fascicles, arranged in two rows along the back. In Hyp- 
totes, as in Uloborus, the 4" pair of legs is longer than the second, and 
the legs are destitute of spines. A pair of accessory claws appear at the ex- 
tremity of the tarsus in Hyptiotes, as well as in Uloborus and other Epei- 
roide. The only character of any consequence, in which Hyptiotes deviates 
at once from Uloborus and the Epeirine, appears to me to lie in the great 
extent of the eye-area, and its considerable distance from the fore-edge of 
the cephalothorax. But a similar relation is also observed in Poltys C. Kocu 
(Pleuromma DOLESCH.), especially as regards the unusually far back loca- 
ted position of the posterior side-eyes ?), and that genus seems in this re- 
spect to occupy the same relation to Æpeira, as Hyptiotes to Uloborus. C. 
KocH united, as has before been said, the genera Poltys and Hyptiotes in 
the same family: the former belongs indisputably to the JEpeirine, whither 
KEYSERLING subsequently referred it, and the latter must with equal cer- 
tainty be placed in the most intimate relation to Uloborus. 
That even its habits and industry claim for Æyptiotes a place among 
the Orbitelariæ, will be evidenced by the following lines which we cite from 
our above-mentioned paper: 
1) Ree. erit. Aran. Suee., p. 107. 
2) Till kinnedomen om slägtena Mithras och Uloborus, p. 202 et seq. 
3) Conf. KocH, Die Arachn., X, p. 97, fig. 821. — KEYSERL., Beschr. neuer ete. 
Orbitele, p. 23, Tab. IIT, fig. 1—3. 
