508 ]\5r. E. I. Pocock 07i the Morphology 



I cannot aorce witli tliis interpretation of the facts. It 

 aj)pears to nie that in all Opiliones, including the Anepignathi 

 [Leptopfialis &(.'.), the sternal sclerite that lies behind the 

 labium represents the sternal elements of the posterior four 

 somites of the prosoma, and is strictly homologous throughout 

 the order. 



In addition to the features mentioned above, IscJiyropsalis 

 differs from Nemastoma and the Troguloid genera, and 

 resembles the Phalangiinfe, in the separation of the carapace 

 from the tergites of the opisthosoma, the presence of a deep 

 transverse groove on the posterior portion of this plate, the 

 exposure of the apertures of Krohn's glands, the suppression 

 of the anal sternite, the absence of lateral anal valves, and the 

 dentition of the digits of the chelicerfe. The large size of the 

 cheliceree even is a character shared bj such genera of 

 Plialangiinre as Rhampsinitus and Pantopsalis. Added to all 

 these features is the presence of a movable styliform process 

 at the extremity of the penis — a character which Simon 

 pointed out as distinctive of the Phalangiidje, although he was 

 not able to test the supposed absence of this structure in 

 Ischyro2Jsalis. In fact, in almost all its characters, exce[)t 

 the shortness of the terminal segment of tlie palpus, the 

 suppression of the palpal claw, the absence of tibial spiracles, 

 and the direction of the maxillary process of the second pair 

 of legs, li-chyropsalis is essentially Phalangiine in structure. 

 Ihese four characters justify the tbrmation of a separate 

 family for Lsclyropsalis and its allied form Sabacorij which 

 is unknown to me; but when balanced in the scale against 

 the many deep-seated characteristics separating this family 

 from the Nemastomida, its next of kin amongst the Eupago- 

 sternous genera, they have but little weight. 



One other small point connected with the affinities of 

 Dlcranolasma remains to be mentioned. This genus was 

 placed nearer to JSemastuma than to Trogulus by Thorell and 

 nearer to Trogulus than to Xemastoma by Simon. So far as 

 the facts dealt with by the two authors were concerned, 

 Thorell's view appears to me to be the more correct; of the 

 two, Sinion relied solely upon the presence of the frontal 

 ])rocesses in classing the genus with Trogulus^ whereas in the 

 structure of the appendages, of the sternites of the opistho- 

 soma, and of the last two tergites the affinities are very 

 decidedly more Nemastomine than Troguline. The sternal 

 plates of the prosoma are, however, more like those of Tro- 

 gulus than of Nemastoma. Perhaps, therefore, the most 

 satisiactory method of dealing with Dicranolasma is to regard 

 it as the type of a special family. 



