116 On the Indian Species of Thelyphonus. 



My reason for considering Koch's figure of T. proscorpio 

 identical with the T. caudatus of Lucas is that there is a great 

 similarity in their general appearance, whilst they both have 

 five denticles on the second joint of the cheliceres ; the dif- 

 ference of width of joints is one often noticeable in a com- 

 parison of figures of the same species drawn respectively by 

 German and French artists, and cannot be depended upon. 

 As to T. angustus of Lucas, Dr. Stoliczka appears to be doubtful 

 of his own identification of the species ; and therefore I need 

 not discuss it. 



Dr. Stoliczka seems indignant at my considering his T. 

 assamensis the adult form of T. riifimanus ; and certainly, if 

 his later figures are taken from the type (in which case the 

 earlier ones cannot be), I should myself allow the two species 

 to be distinct, and should correct the synonymy by considering 

 T. scabrinus of Stoliczka identical with T. rufmanus, and T. 

 assamensis of the later paper and plate as probably a malformed 

 example of my T. psittacinus. 



I may be allowed to state my view of the really well- 

 executed plate which accompanies Dr. Stoliczka's notes, as 

 follows : — 



Fig. 1. Thelyphonus scabrinus, Stol., = T. assamensis, Stol. (ruf- 

 manus, Lucas). 



2. T. assamensis, Stol., = IT. psittacinus, Butl., malformed. 



3. T. (conf.) angustus, Lucas, = ? T. proscorpio, Latr., junior. 



4. T. formosus, Butl., = T. formosus, Butl., variety. 



5. T. indicus, Stol., = T. sepiaris, Butl. 



6. T. Beddomei, Stol., = n. sp. 



It appears, notwithstanding the author's statement that 

 " figures of single parts are undoubtedly very useful, but they 

 are not sufficient," &c, that he has been successful in de- 

 termining my T. formosus ; and he does not hint at the possi- 

 bility of any of my other new species being wrongly identified. 



In conclusion, if in the above remarks I have felt bound to 

 defend myself, from a consciousness that my determinations 

 are worthy of more consideration than Dr. Stoliczka has shown 

 them, it must be understood that I have done so with a view 

 to the advancement of science, and from no wish to contradict 

 the author of a really useful paper ; and I may add that I 

 shall look forward with great pleasure to Dr. Stoliczka's 

 promised paper on the anatomy of the genus, which will, I 

 doubt not, throw much light upon the affinities of this long 

 neglected but most interesting group. 





