Cteniform Spiders of Ceylon, Burmali, tCr. 333 



forms now bel'oie nie. The second example, the smaller, 

 appears to be a dwart" form, in which the vulva is not so well 

 developed. Should this form occur in any number and the 

 males accompanying them otior any decided ilitierence from 

 males accompanying the larger form^ it will probably have 

 to be described as a new species. 



The example of whose vulva I give a figure is not really 

 closely allied to valvuhiris, funi/ifer, jaoanus, itc. The form 

 of tiie vulva renders it very di.stiiict from either, though of 

 course in general characters all the forms described, except 

 denttculatusj are very similar. 



1887. Ctenus ramosus, Thor. <5* ad., 13i mm. Ann. ^lus. 

 Genov. ser. 2 a, vol. v. May 31-Oct. 7, p. 291. Bhamu, 

 Burmah. 

 1895. Ctenus ramosus, Thor. Spid. Burma, p. xxvii. 



(^ . Tib. i. 5 pair spines beneath ; antice 1, postice 1 — 1, 

 supra 1 — 1 — 1. Tib. iii. and iv. supra 1 — 1 — 1. Protarsi 

 i. and ii. beneath with 3 pair spines. 



Measurements. — Tot. len. Vd'D mm., carap. 7'5, ant, marg. 

 2-5; legs i. 26-25, ii. 24-25, lii. 20, iv. 28-5; put. + tib. iv. 9a. 



Tibia of 2)edipalp. " E.k apicc hujus procursus, e basi 

 communi latiore, exeunt alii procursus graciliimi cornei fusci 

 duo, quorum alter si)inam levissime incurvam, ipso apice in 

 triangulum minutum dilatani; anteriora versus directam 

 ibrniiit, alter jiaullo fortior, deprsum et paullo intus directa 

 est, fere in medio subito intus fractus et hoc loco extus 

 dente foras directo armatus." — " Bulbus a latere visus partem 

 longam crassam nitidam cylindratam a basi bulbi anteriora 

 versus proten^am ostendit, cujus a|)ex subacuminatusdeorsum 

 curvatus est." — " Venter niger." — " Exemplum singuluni 

 adultum ad Bhamo invenit Fea. Marem praaceJentis hanc 

 araneam credere non possum, prsesertim quum pedes plane 

 alio modo aculeatos habeat.''^ 



The fact that the legs in this male present a different 

 spinulation to that of " trabifer, ? ," need not, of itself, afford 

 evidence of a specific distinction as Thorell suggests. In 

 C. ceyhnensisj sp. n., the difference in spinulation between 

 the sexes is precisely as Thorell describes in ramosus^ ^ , as 

 contrasted with trabifer, $ ; while the males of all the 

 Ctenincb of the New World, so far as I have had experience 

 of them; present the same difference. A male in Mr. Hose's 

 collection from Borneo also presents similar differences from 

 the females. From Thorell's description the tibia of the 

 pedipalp in ramosus would seem to bear a general resemblance 

 to that of ceylonensis^ but certainly is not identical with it. 



