300 Bibliographical Notices. 
quires several inward bends ; and in order to give the moyement the 
necessary softness and elasticity, without detriment to the ecarrying- 
power of the limb, these bends must follow each other with short 
intervals near both extremities of this line (7. e. just below the knee 
and near the point of the foot). This arrangement therefore neces- 
sitates that the first division under the knee should be much shorter 
in spiders than in insects; for whilst in insects, being plantigrade, 
this division constitutes the only lever for carrying the weight of the 
body, it forms in spiders, which are digitigrade, only the uppermost 
section of a compound lever, consisting of a succession of joints, 
each carrying a part of the burden. But this first division below 
the knee is the tibia, and it ought not to change name only because 
its size and the manner in which it enters into the composition of 
the leg are changed. That division of the leg, therefore, which 
araneologists call ‘ patella’ is the true tibia, and what they call the 
tibia is the first joint of the tarsus lifted up from the ground.” 
That is to say, Prof. Schiddte proposes that we should cease making 
a mistake with regard to spiders similar to that popularly com- 
mitted with regard to horses and other Mammalia, whose wrists are 
called knees, and whose so-called shanks are merely the metacarpal 
portion of the foot raised from the ground and simulating a tibia. 
The genus Stalita was first established by Schiddte in his ‘ Specimen 
Faune Subterranes,’ in which he described a series of remarkable 
Insects, Arachnida, and Crustaceans, discovered by him in the caves 
of Adelsberg in 1845, and wonderfully adapted in conformity with 
their life in darkness and on the stalactites. Since then, the cave- 
fauna has been carefully studied, without, however, adding much 
to our knowledge. The present paper on Stalita has been caused by 
a memoir of Count Keyserling in the ‘ Transactions of the I. R. Zoo- 
logical and Botanical Society of Vienna’ for 1862, on a new caye- 
spider (Hadites tegenaria) from Lessina, in Dalmatia, in which the 
author, having also received some female Stalitas from that locality, 
submits Schiddte’s original account of Stalita to a severe criticism. 
Alluding to two figures in ‘the Spec. Faun. Subt., viz. fig. 3 ¢ and 
fig. 3d, pl. 2, he says that they are intended to represent the same 
parts of the mouth in the two sexes of Stalita tenaria, but that the 
difference is so great that Schiddte must have confounded two spe- 
«ies. He regrets that Schiddte has not described the female, but 
only figured some parts of its mouth; and, on the supposition that 
his own Stalitas from Lessina belong to the same species as Schiddte’s 
from Adelsberg, he proceeds to give what he thinks a more accurate 
description of these animals than is found in the ‘ Spec. Faun. Subt.’ 
Unfortunately for his criticism, a reference to the figures in question 
shows that they represent, not the same, but utterly different parts 
of the mouth of the two sexes of Stalita tenaria, fig. 3¢ being de- 
scribed as “‘ maxilla foemine dextra cum labro palpoque maxillari, 
supra, decies aucta,” and fig. 3d as “maxilla maris sinistra, cum 
labio sternali inferne visa, sedecies aucta ;” that is to say, one re- 
presents the upper lip from above in the female, the other represents 
the lower lip of the male from beneath, as indeed an able araneo- 
