er , "P; d X 
118 'T. THORELL, « 
species forming the genera Amaurobius and Ceelotes belong to the Drassoi- 
de, to which also OHLERT refers the first-named of these genera, whereas 
by BLACKWALL and L. KocH Colotes is assigned to the Agalenoide, and 
Amaurobius (Ciniflo BLACKW.) is made the type of a separate family, Cini- 
flonide BLACKW. or Amaurobiide L. Kocn. These spiders are classified in i 
like manner by CANESTRINI and PAVESI?) Agreca and Liocranum, which’ 
C. KocH includes in his Agelenides, belong according to L. Kocx to the T 
Drassoide. BLACKWALL refers the species of Agraca to the former, those " 
of Liocranum to the latter family; and so forth. — If attention be fixed ex- _ 
clusively on the number (3) of the tarsal claws, Agreca must be detached" p" 
from the Agalenoide, though in its whole appearance closely allied to tha Es 
family, but having only 2 claws on the tarsus; if again, with OHLERT, we , 
assume elongated superior spinners as the indispensable characteristic of the „ = 
så 
Agalenoidæ, then we are obliged to exclude not only Agreca, but also Ar- Lx 
gyroneta, Cybeus and the Amaurobünæ. IL. KocH, in his excellent vore b 
on the Amaurobiinæ and Drassoidæ, detaches, in company with BLACKWALE, T 
as we have already seen, the Amaurobün® as a separate family on account 
of the presence of the infra-mammillary organ and ealamistrum; he appt ars 
to consider two-jointed superior spinners and three tarsal claws as essentially ; à 
necessary characteristics of the Agalenoide, and is therefore im doubt to = 
what family to refer Cybceus *), which, like the Agalenoide, has no infra- * - 
mammillary organ or calamistrum, but has only one-jointed superior spiny” L 
ners, and on account of its 3 tarsal claws cannot be referred to the Drass- 
oide. For my part I prefer, in determining the boundary between Drassoide 
and Agalenoide, to lay, in cases of doubt, the principal stress on the presence 
of a distinctly marked pars cephalica in these latter in contradistinetion from the 
former. Not only Cybœus, but also Colotes appears to me much more nearly 
related to Amaurobius than to the typical Agalenoidæ, and I am therefore 
obliged to consider the presence of the infra-mammillary organ and the ca- „ 
lamistrum, which distinguishes the Amaurobiine (but which also occurs in 
genera of the most widely differing families), as a feature of tolerably trifling 
importance *), and which barely allows the forming of a separate sub-family * 
for the genera of Agalenoide, which are provided with these organs. As 
regards the superior spinners, ‘their length varies sos considerably within à 
1) Aran. Ital., p. 61—63. 
2) Die Arachn.-gattungen Amaurobius, Ccelotes u. Cybæus, p. 4, 
3) MENGE does not seem to lay any weight on the organs in question: at least 
he includes the genera Dictyna and Lethia (= Ciniflo BLACKW. ad part.) in his fa- 
mily Theridide (Preuss. Spinn., III, p. 244, 249). 
