58 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge on Cteniform Spiders 



It is necessary, tlien, in case the genus sliould ever be 

 re-established, to select one of the two species described under 

 it by Perty as the type. 



Although P. riifiharhis is the species first described, I am 

 compelled to conclude that, unless the original type turns up, 

 neither its generic affinities nor its specific identity will ever, 

 or can ever, be established with any real certainty. 



In coming to this conclusion one has to remark that in the 

 figur^ of the eyes o^ riifiharhis [I. c. pi. xxxix. fig. 2) theanterior 

 laterals are omitted, thus leaving us entirely in the dark as to 

 the character of the eye-formula, while the figure of the spider 

 is wholly unrecognizable ; nor do the descriptions assist us 

 to make good the deficiency in this respect. 



Neither does the only definite character offered of the spider 

 itself in the description help us to identify the species ; and 

 although it is probable that Perty is describing one of the 

 larger Cteiiina;, there is no certainty in the matter. He says 

 " ochracea, chelicormihns rufo-hirtis," a coloration which is 

 to a greater or less extent characteristic of several other large 

 species. There is, however, one character which, if it appeared 

 on any form of large Ctenus, would go far to substantiate its 

 identity — " abdomine albo-punctato. Seriebus tribus longitu- 

 dinalibus punctorum alborum " — a character which receives 

 double significance from Perty's figure. I am inclined to 

 think that the artist fancied the picture incomplete without 

 a middle row of spots between the two usually found in certain 

 species of the genus ; but if one is found so decorated, my 

 conclusion would need reconsideration. At present it is 

 characteristic of none of the forms yet taken and assigned to 

 riijiharhis. 



There are before us, then, three distinct species to which 

 this character " chelicorniihus rufo-hirtis " would equally 

 apply — the one to which Keyserling has assigned the name 

 P. riijiharhis^ Pf'i'^Jj ff whose vulva he pubHshes a figure in 

 Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, 1881, ]i. 575, ])1. xvi. fig. 21, and 

 two s])ecics, with bright rod hai)s on the mandibles, from the 

 Amazons. Keyserling jnobably concluded that his specimen 

 was Perty's riijiharhis on account of this character, which is 

 common to these three species at least; and I am thus com- 

 pelled to conclude that F. riijiharhis, Perty, is a " forma 

 ignota," whose specific characters are not recognizable. This 

 being tiie case, I shall have much pleasure in naming /'. Perlyi 

 the form to which Keyserling assigned the name P. riiji- 

 harhis. 



One cannot but conclude that its generic affinities also are 

 no longer to be known with any certainty^ whatever the 



