of the Familij Plialangodidge. 81 



nearest the proximal end of the segment being the longest, 

 whilst the distal one is the shortest. PatelUi, tibia, and 

 tarsus armed with the same number of spines as in E. 

 orientalis. 



Legs. — Femur of first leg unarmed ; femur of fourth almost 

 straight. Number of tarsal segments 8-9, 22-24, 9, 10. 

 Claws of the posterior legs each armed with a single large 

 tooth. 



Colour. — Body and appendages pale yellowish brown, but 

 the distal ends of the metatarsi and the whole length of the 

 tarsi are whitish. 



Aleasurements in mm. — Length of trunk 3'75, of scutum .3, 

 of fourth leg (from base of femur) 16"5. 



Material. — A specimen of each sex from Chantaboon, 

 Siam {Capt. S. S. Flower). The male has its very long 

 penis fully extruded and the tip of the ovipositor of the 

 female is visible when the genital operculum is lifted up. 



Remarks. — Like E. orientalis, sp. n., this species has a 

 pair of thorns on the second abdominal area of the scutum, 

 but it can easily be distinguished from that species by the 

 presence of the swollen area on each side of the cephalo- 

 thoracic part of the scutum, by the shortness and difference 

 in shape of the proximal segment of the chelicera, by the 

 greater number of tarsal segments, &c. It is also mucl) 

 paler (yellower) than E. orientalis. 



Bote. — Dr. C. Fr. Roewer gives the shortness of the 

 median spine as compared with the transverse width of the 

 ocular tubercle as one of the characters distinguishing his two 

 new genera {Epedanellus and Takaoia) from Epedanus. 

 This character does not seem to be of much importance. In 

 Eseudobiantes japonicus, Hirst, a species which has an ocular 

 tubercle of the same type as the species of Epedanus, this 

 thorn may be either distinctly longer or slightly shorter than 

 the transverse width of the tubercle. In Epedanus orientalis, 

 sp. n., it is shorter than the width of the tubercle, and yet 

 this species is in all other respects quite a normal member of 

 the genus Epedanus. 



The shape of the proximal segment of the chelicera is 

 another character employed by Dr. Roewer to distinguish the 

 two new genera mentioned above, but the shape of this seg- 

 ment is very different in closely allied species of Epedanus 

 (for instance, in the two new species described above), and 

 this is also the case in the genus Phalangodes. I do not 

 think myself that this character is of generic value. 



Ann. (k i[ag. N. Hist. Ser. 8. Vol. x. 6 



