222 T. THORELL, 
to the family Liphistioide NOB. (vid. p. 43), unless it be preferred to create 
a new family especially for it, a proceeding, which perhaps the unusually 
short femoral joints of the palpi (see RÖMER’S figures), as also two backward- 
directed spines in the midst of each side of the abdomen might justify. 
Phalangites MÖNST. 1839 = Palpipes RorH 1851. In the lithographie 
limestone of Solenhofen in Bavaria, belonging to the Jurassic formation, MUN- 
STER detected the impression of a previously unknown animal, which, on 
account of its resemblance to a Phalangium, he called Phalangites priscus ?). 
RotH 2), who had at his disposal several specimens, which he divides into 
two species, thought he could clearly perceive the contour of an abdomen 
separated from the cephalothorax, and observed two long, jointed and cross- 
ringed organs, attached to the abdomen and united at the base, which he 
considered to be spinners, and he accordingly aggregated these animals to the 
Order of Spiders. He named the genus Palpipes, and considered that 
it ought to be referred to the AMygalides (Territelarie); he characterizes 
it as follows: "Cephalothorax ab abdomine discretus. Palpi maximi, in 
pedes mutati. Pedum paria longitudine diversa. Tarsi monomeri, ungui va- 
lido simplici terminati. Papille textorie dus magne exsertæ, vel aliud 
quoddam organum bipartitum, cornutum, articulatum, in medio ventre situm, 
cornubus antice vergentibus." — The figure given by RorH of P. priscus really 
gives the impression of a spider with uncommonly long and thin legs and 
very long, leg-like palpi. Examples of still existing spiders with but one 
tarsal claw are not wanting (Sparassus abnormis BLACKW., Attus (Diolenius) 
phrynoides WALCK.: See above pp. 170 and 203); very long cross-ringed 
spinners occur also in another fossil spider, Gerdia myura MENGE, of 
which we shall speak farther on. Their abnormal position and direction in 
Phalangites may be a consequence of the animal’s having been crushed and 
the relative position of the parts thus changed. In the mean time it is 
maintained by v. MEYER *), that what RorH looked upon as the contour of 
1) MÖNSTER, G., Graf zu, Phalangites priscus, in EJusp. Beiträge zur Petre- 
fakten-kunde, Hft 1, p. 84, Taf. VIII, fig. 3, 4. (Bayreuth 1839). 
2) Rotu, J., Ueber fossile Spinnen des lithografischen Schiefers, im Gelehrte 
Anzeigen, Herausgegeben von Mitgliedern d. K. Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaf- 
ten, Bd XXXII, p. 164—167. (München 1851). 
3) MEvER, Herm. v., Zu Palpipes priseus aus dem lithographischen Schiefer in 
Bayern, in EJUSD. Palæontographica, Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vorwelt, 
Bd X, Lief. 6, p. 299—304, Taf. L, fig. 1—4 (Cassel 1864). — See also a letter from 
Vv. MEYER to BRONN, in LEONHARD and Bronn’s Neues Jahrbuch f. Min., Geol. ete., 
1861, p. 561. Bronx there surmises that Phalangites should be compared with the 
Pantopoda (Pycnogonoidea). 
