Cteniform l>piilers of Cei/hn, Burmali^ d:c. 339 



except 1 towarrls base on outer side of tib. ii. Palollfc with 

 spines as in male. ICyes not quite so closely grouped. 



Slernxim scarcely longer than broad, circular. Maxilln3 

 broad at base (PI. IV. fig. 0). Labium scarcely longer than 

 broad, less than halt' the length of maxilla. 



Tco't^al clmcs two. Claw-tuft present ; scopula present, 

 but very slight. 



The male and female described by Thorcll, now before me, 

 are most ])robably (sec. Simon's descri|)tion) identical with 

 L. (?ctiiicul(itus, Sim. As no figures of ihc species have been 

 ])ublished; 1 take this op])ortunity of figuring it. I am, how- 

 ever, if those forms identified by Thorcll as denficiilatus are 

 really so, not able to reconcile Simon's reference to the 

 spiiiulation of ])atella iv. In comparing dcnticulatus with 

 Leptoctenns agalenoides^ L. K., Simon regards the former 

 as differing in the number of tibial spines (5 instead of 4) ; 

 also in the number of spines on patella iv., two instead of 

 one on each side; also in the presence of the scopula. 



The forms which Thorcll has referred to denticulatuSj Sim., 

 certaiidy both male and female, have but one spine on each 

 side of patella? i., ii., iii., and iv. 



1888. Leptoctenns tumidulus, Sim. ^ " ])ullus," 15 mm. 



Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, Ivi. pt. ii. p. 108. Tenas- 



serim, Tavoy, Burmah. 

 ^ . 15 mm., young. " Cephalotliorax posticus valde con- 

 vexus.'" — " Oculi fere ut in L. denticidato sed area mediorum 

 latins transversa et oculis lateralibus seriei 1^ a mediis latius 

 remotis. Cly])eus oculis anticis haud Jatior, retro obJiquus. 

 Chelaj margine inferiore sulci quadridentato, dentibus 1 et 

 2 reliquis ])aulo majoribus. Tib. anticai infra 5 — 5 aculeata? 

 (iii. reliquis lougioribus). Metatarsis aculeis similibus 3 — 3." 

 — 'J'ib. + pat. iv. almost equal to carapa(;e. — " L. denficuluto, 

 E. Sim., affinis, differt imprimis ce})halothorace postice con- 

 vexiore, pedibus brevioribus, etc," 



1 extract the above from M. Simon's description of this 

 species for the sake of forming some idea of its generic 

 affinities, though one cannot consider a description drawn 

 from an immature specimen to be of much value for purposes 

 of identification. One is at a loss to understand how so ablu 

 and experienced an arachnologist should allow himself to 

 base new species on immature examples. There is quite 

 sufficient labour already handed down to posterity in iden- 

 tifying adult forms, briefly described, unaccompanied by a 

 single figure, without thus increasing the confusion by mere 

 descriptions of immature forms. 



