of the Geii'ira of (h; x\v:ii\ex. 13 



Ivpicuj species or a restriction of tlie group to the first two 

 species. 



Type, Steutoda lunata, Suiul. (= T. tepidariorunij 0. L. K.). 

 — Europe. 



EUCHARIA, C. L. Kocli, Deutscli. Ins. (Panzer) Heft 134 

 (18H5) (sec. Davies Slierborn, F.Z.S., in Index Ani- 

 malium, MS.)- 



Two species ■were originally referred to this genus: — 

 (1) E. hera, Heft 134,9; (2) E. bipunctatUj llet't'l31, 10, 

 11. 



The genus was first broken up by Koch himself, who in 

 1S39 removed E. bipunctata, and i)hiced it. under the name 

 P. ortiatus, C. L. Koch (which, sec. Thorell, Simon, and 

 Knlczynski, is a synonym), in his genus PhruroUthua. 



Tiie first species then, which, sec. Thorell, = ct/s/a/?eM?, 

 Clerck, and castanea, Oliv., remains as the type of the 

 genus. Eucharia is, however, a nom. proeocc. by Hiibner, 

 Lepidoptcra, 1816. 



The type is included by Simon in his genus Teutana, 1881. 



Type, Eucharia hera, C L. Kocli,=:A\ castanea (Olivier), 

 1789.— Europe. 



Stearodea, gen. no v. 



Since Aranea bipunctata^ Linn., was withdrawn by Koch 

 under his new genus Eucharia in 1835, and there is no other 

 name available under which this species and its allies have 

 at any time been placed, I here propose the name Stearodea 

 (crreap, wax ; oIlSov, resembling), which means essentially the 

 same as Stealodn, for the gioup of w,iich A. bipunctata, 

 Linn., is typical. 



Type, Stearodea bipunctata (Linn.). — Europe. 



Phrurolithus, C. L. Koch, Die Arach. vi. p. 100 (1839). 



Nine sj)ecies were originally referred to this genus : — 

 (1) P. coroUatus (Linn.) ; (2) P. hamatus, K<u-h ; (3) P. hi- 

 luitufi, Koch; (-1) P. er7/throcephaIus, Koch ] {r>) P. festivus, 

 Koch ; (G) P. niinimus, Koch ; (7) P. ru/escens, Koch ; 

 (8) P. ornatus, Koch ; (9) P. trifasciutun, Koch. 



This group was not broken up or restricted in any effectual 

 manner until 18G9; for Westring's action in 18.")1 (Uotheborg. 

 Kongl. Vetenskaps, Heft 2, p. 46) is not valid, as definitely 

 limiting the genus to the two species mentioned, since he 



