110 ON BRITISH ARACHNIDA. 



not told, though doubtless they are right ; and it may be 

 remarked that the figures given (Araneides de France, 

 PI. II., Vol. I., Figs. 1,2) by M. Simon correspond respec- 

 tively with those of the epigyne in each as figured by 

 Kulczynski and Bosenberg. The second form figured and 

 recorded by Kulczynski and Bosenberg is called by them 

 Epeira triguttata, Fabr., and appears to agree with the other 

 form which we now conclude to be hitherto unrecorded in 

 Britain as a separate species. Whether it is the true 

 E. triguttata, Fabr., or not it seems impossible, as I have 

 above observed, as yet to decide with certainty ; or whether 

 the other species those authors figure is Epeira Slurtnii, 

 Hahn., or not is equally, or even, it seems to me, more 

 doubtful. All that is certain is that one of our British forms 

 is Epeira agalena, Bl. Perhaps the best course to adopt at 

 present is to record the one we have found to be mixed 

 up in England with E. agalena as Epeira trigutlala, Jackson- 

 Kulcz. -Bosenberg. All of the authors I have consulted, 

 excepting the two specially mentioned above and M. Simon, 

 include Epeira Sturmii, Hahn., as a synonym of E. triguttata, 

 Fabr., or of E. agalena, Bl., or of both. 



Epeira triguttata, Jackson-Kulcz-Bosenberg (Figs. 23, 24, 



25, 26). 



Araneus Iriguttatus, Jackson-Kul-Bos., Trans. Nat. 

 Hist. Soc., Northumberland, 

 Durham, and Newcastle-upon- 

 Tyne. New Sen, Vol. III., 

 Part 2, PI. x., Figs. 6, 6a, b, c, d. 



To what has been said in respect to the preceding 

 species, E. agelena, BL, it need only be added here that 

 the two fofms appear to be about equally abundant in 

 Dorset and widely distributed, though, perhaps, rather 

 local. Among examples of the newly-recorded form I have 

 some males marked on the upper side at the fore extremity 

 with three large well defined white spots in the form of a 



