On EUROPEAN SPIDERS. 223 
an abdomen, is the impression of a 5" pair of short and slender legs, and 
that accordingly the animal does not belong to the Arachnoidea, neither to 
the Opiliones, nor to the Aranew, but to the Crustacea. This view appears 
to me to have but little probability, as giving no satisfactory explanation 
of the organs observed in many specimens, and by RorH supposed to be 
spinners. To consider them with v. MEYER as antenne, would seem dan- 
gerous, as they are always found on or near the abdomen (Conf. RorH, 
loc. cit). That the contour of the abdomen gives the impression of a pair 
of jointed and converging extremities, might be explained by considering 
the abdomen itself to have been segmentated. At all events the animals 
in question are so peculiar, that they not only form a separate family, 
Phalangitoide, but even a group of a higher order, which may be cal- 
led FZLIGRADZE; if, as I suppose, this group belong to the order of Spi- 
ders, it ought, as a separate sub-order, characterized especially by single- 
jointed tarsi armed with but one coarse claw, to take a place below both 
Scytodoide and Filistatoide, uniting them with the Opiliones. 
Numerous representatives of the order of Spiders from the tertiary 
formations are already known. They appear all to belong to the miocene, or 
(the amber spiders) perhaps to a still older period. From the fresh-water 
formations near Aix in Provence MARCEL DE SERRES !) has produced a ” Ze- 
genaria", as also a” Phalangium” said to resemble Phalangium phaleratum 
PANZER, i. e. Asagena phalerata. I imagine it to be this last-named species, 
that is figured in BUCKLAND’s Geology and Mineralogy 2), and for which the 
same place of discovery is alleged; it closely resembles a Theridium. I 
propose to call it TR. Buckland. In the sulphur-impregnated tertiary strata 
of Radoboj in Croatia several spiders are also said to be found ?). Von 
HEYDEN describes the remains of two spiders, discovered in the Brown- 
coal strata of the Siebengebirge on the Rhine, which he calls Gea Krantzü *) 
and Argyroneta antiqua 5). The first seems to me to be a species of Epeira; 
the second is certainly no Argyroneta, but represents, if the figure can 
be relied upon, a peculiar genus, which may be called 
1) Notes géologiques sur la Provence, in Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bor- 
deaux, T. XIII, p. 34 (Bordeaux 1844). 
2) BUCKLAND, W., Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural 
Theology (2% Edit.) II, p. 79, Pl. 46", fig. 12. (London 1837). 
3) QUENSTEDT, F. A., Handbuch d. Petrefaktenkunde (2% Ed.), p. 268. (Tü- 
bingen 1867). I do not know whence QUENSTEDT has taken this statement. 
4) HEYpEN, C. v., Fossile Insekten aus der Rheinischen Braunkohle (MEvER's 
Palæontographica, VIII, Lief. I, p. 2, Taf. II, fig. 11. (1859). 
Syd cu P Taf, 2, fig. 512. 
