76 ]\Ir. F. O. P. Cambridge un Ctenifurm Spiders 



broad, not or only very 8li<j:htly narrowed in 

 front. Eyes of ocular quadrangle subequal, 

 anterior.s only slightly smaller. Second row 

 of eyes straight by anterior margins. Legs i, 

 equal to or longer than legs iv.) 



A. Tibia and tarsus of pedipalp black, w-ith two 



narrow pale longitudinal lines in front. 

 ^'ulva broad, without pair of dark central 

 longitudinal ridges. 



a. Size larger, 40 mm C. Keidyi, sp. n. 



b. Siz'3 smaller, 32-33 mm. 



1. Legs i. longer than legs iv. A'uha 



emarginate auteriorly C. Andreiv,^{, sp. n. 



2. Legs i. equal to legs iv. Vulva not 



emarjiinate anteriorly C. Perti/i*, uom. nov. 



(C'.riijibarbis, Keys.) 



B. Tibia and tarsus of pedipalp unlcolorous dark 



brown, without narrow ])ale lines in front. 

 Yulva elongate, with pair of parallel, cen- 

 tral, longitudinal ridges. 



a. Abdunien with central, dorstal, pale scal- 



loped baud (besides lateral pale bands 

 — bolirie7isis). 



1. Size much larger, 40 mm. Ventral 



surface of abdomen without broad 



black longitudinal band C. boh'viensts, 8p. n. 



2. Size much .^mailer, 30 mm. Ventral 



surface of abdomen with broad black 



liuigitudinal band C. nigi-iventer, Keys. 



b. Abdomen unicolorous above, brown . . C. Kei^sertimjii, nom. uov. 



(C./erus, Keys.) 

 IL Tibia and tarsus of pedipalp without pad of 

 short hair on inner side. Patella and tibia i. 

 equal to or only slightly hnger tlsan patella 

 and tibia iv. (Legs i. .shorter than legs iv.) 

 A. Ocular quadrangle slightly longer than 

 broad, scarcely narrower in front. Eyes of 

 quadrangle subequal, anteriors slightly 

 smaller. 

 a. Second row of eyes straight by anterior 



* There are no really reliable characters other than those drawn from 

 .«mall comparative dithrences of measurement, difficult and tedious to 

 verify, to be found in these closely allied forms. Iieally good tigures of 

 the iiiha are alone truslwortl y and, as a rule, practicable. In tlie 

 majority of cases Keyserling's ii;:ures sutlice for distingiii>hing tlie iiLove 

 species. 



C. advstus, Kpy8. (of which the type specimen is before me), is an 

 inimature $, and one can scarcely regard it as a good species amongst 

 forms wliich are themselves hardly to be distingui.-hed, save by charac- 

 ters which are manifest only in the ndult. 



I am at a lo^s to under.-tand how^ exjxrienced arachnologists, almost 

 without exception, with connthss adult forms to be described, can per- 

 suade themselves to bas-e new species, and even new genera, on immature 

 specin;ens, these very specin ens even sometimes being mutilated, worn 

 cut, and without legs, as the authors themselves confess. 



