b 



from the Lower Amazons tC'c. 61 



pp. 417 and 426, t. xiii. There is no description, but a 

 figure only, of one of the larger Cteninai. Hub. ignota. — 

 AValckenaer, Ins. Apt. ii. p. 459, doubts its distinctness 

 from C, janeirus ^J. If he is right, Griffith's name has 

 priority. (Ph III. fig. 2.) 



1837. Ctenus Jimhriatus, Walck. ? , 17"5 mm. Ins. Apt. 

 i. p. 3G4. Cape of Good Hope, Africa. — Has been selected 

 by M. Simon as the type of [Titurius) Thalassius. He 

 informs me, however, that the type no longer exists. 



1837. Ctenus janeirus, Walck. ? , 16 mm. Ins Apt. i. 

 p. 364. South America, Rio de Janeiro. — It seems not 

 improbable that this species belongs to the Lycosidfe, for 

 Walckenaer mentions the great height of the clypeus, 

 though no mention is made of the number of tarsal claws. 



1837. Ctenus sanguineus, Walck. $ , 23 mm. Ins. Apt. i. 

 p. 365. South America, Brazil. 



1837. Ctenus nnicolor , Walck. ^, 18 mm., $. Ins. Apt. 

 i. p. 365. Brazil, iiio de Janeiro, and San Sebastian. — 

 Walckenaer mentions that the palpal organs resemble those 

 of the male of ISegestria, and regards the species as iden- 

 tical with Dolomedes concolor, Perty. If this is the case, 

 the latter name, of course, has priority. 



1837. Ctenus rufus, Walck. ? , 14*5 mm. Ins. Apt. i. 

 p. 367. South America, French Guiana. — Possibly a 

 Lycoctenus. 



1837. Ctenus fuscus,^N?i\Qk. ? , 9 ram. Ins. Apt. i. p 368. 

 South America, French Guiana. — Possibly a Lycoctenus. 



1837. Ctenus rufiharhis (Perty), Walck. ? , 32 mm. Ins. 

 Apt. i. p. 369. Rio Janeiro, Brazil. 



1837. C'^e/i MS /erws (Perty), Walck. ?, 34 mm. Ins. Apt. 

 i. p. 370. Rio Negro, Brazil. — Walckenaer accurately 

 describes the eye-formula which he considers should be 

 characteristic of Perty's Phoneutria, though he includes 

 both these forms under his own more comprehensive 

 Ctenus, merely distinguishing them as a separate group of 

 the genus. Keyserling has expressed an opinion that 

 Walckenaer was wrong in attributing this eye-formula to 

 Phoneutria. Walckenaer could but follow Perty's figure, 

 however convinced he might be that the figure itself was 

 erroneous, unless he was in the position to give a fresii 

 diagnosis of the genus from the original type. 



