Cteniform Spiders of Ceylon^ Burmah^ tC'c, 337 



comparison of tlie types. I have to thank Dr. van Ilassolt 

 for information concerning the type and other important notes. 

 cJ ad. Ilab. Sumatra. 



189'>. Ctenus J>arhatus, Thor. ? juv., 8^ ram. Spid. 

 Burma, p. 21i. Kyeikpadcm (Pegu), Burmah [Oates). 



Of tliis immature form Tliori'll remarks, " Femina nondum 

 adulta et phme dctrita, quam singulam vidi.''^ — " C. trahifero 

 ad formam simillima, propter penieillo oris colore multo palli- 

 diore priesertim agnoscenda." 



Under the circumstances one could have wislied this form 

 liad not been described as a new species, seeing that identi- 

 fication, from descriptions alone, is .sufficiently difficult even 

 in the case of adults. The type, which is before m^, might 

 well be the young of any of the forms of which the ventral 

 area of the abdomen is m:irked with rows of spots. 



1895. Ctenus denticulatus (Sim.), Thor. ^ $ al., ? 7*5- 

 10 mm. Spid. Burma, j). 216. Rangoon and Thara- 

 waddy, Kyeikpadcm {Gates). (PI. IV. tigs. 4-9.) 

 Specimen identiried by Thorell in coll. Brit. Mus. Nat. 



Hist., originally described in 1884 — Leptoctenus denticulatus, 



Sim. Ann. Mus. Genov. xx. p. 355. 



Genus Leptoctenus, L. K. 



Whether L. agalenoides is or is not congeneric with the 

 two-clawed ctenoid forms which are found in Sumatra and 

 Borneo I cannot pretend to say. L. Koch himself says : — 

 ''Tibia i. and ii. 4 pair of spines" (whether he includes the 

 apical pair or not, I cannot say) ; also " no scopula." The 

 ctenoids from Borneo now before me have very distinct scopul* 

 on the anterior tarsi and protarsi, as well as the posterior tarsi j 

 and 5 pairs of subtibial spines on i. and ii., one pair being 

 apical. Otherwise, except that the anterior centrals are 

 smaller in proportion in Koch's figure, one would conclude 

 tliem to be congeneric. That the forms placed under Ctenus 

 by Thorell {C. pulvinatus, valvularis, trabifevy &c.) are very 

 closely allied to those of the New World, taking albofasciatus^ 

 2, as an example, there is no doubt — the only difference I 

 can detect being in the constant presence of a minute fifth 

 tooth on the lower margin of the fang-groove, which is missing 

 in all examples of Bornean ctenoids which have come before 

 me, though it may possibly appear in some species. Whether, 

 as Thorell suggests, Leytoctenus , L. K., differs from Ctenus, 

 Walck. ((7. dubius), or from Isoctenus, Bertk., is not easy to 

 say in the absence of types. 



