ane Miscellaneous. 
figure or upon the amount of variation assumed by this form. I 
fully concur with Mr. Hedley with regard to the importance of 
figures, which, however, should be correct, for an inaccurate figure 
is almost worse than none. 
I find other differences, however, besides that of size, which 
certainly is not “the only written discrepaney in the descriptions 
of each.” Differences of form, of colour, and sculpture are also 
indicated. The whorls of 2. flyensis are said to be ‘ above rather 
convex,” whereas in J. Armiti they are flattish (‘ vix convexi- 
usculi”). The lower surface of the latter is concentrically striated, 
a feature not noticed in the description of 2. flyensis. The spire in 
Mr. Hedley’s figure is much higher than in my species, and the 
strongly marked subperipheral band is also wanting in Lt. Armiti. 
I compared it with Zt. hercules, not because I was ignorant of 
Mr. Hedley’s description and figure of 7. flyensis, but because it 
seemed to me to have a closer relationship with that species, and 
because specimens were at hand for comparison. 
In conclusion, I would remark that Mr. Hedley’s observations 
would have appeared with more propriety if he had been writing 
upon the fauna of New Guinea, Some Americans are said to be 
very jealous of interference by Europeans with their fauna; and it 
seems almost as if the “ green-eyed monster” were tripping in the 
Antipodes, 
Descriptions of some new Araneidee of New South Wales. 
& By W. J. Ratyzow, 
Three new species of orb- weavers of the genus Nephila from New 
England and Sydney are described. ‘The fact is recorded of a young 
bird (probably Lstrelda temporalis) ‘having been caught in the web 
of N. ventricosa in the vicinity of Sydney ; also that Mr, A. J. Thorpe, 
of the Australian Museum, had seen an emu-wren (Stipiturus 
malachurus) entangled in the web of one of the Nephile at Madden’s, 
near Belle Plains (N.S.W.); also at Cape York several of the blue 
warblers, notably Malurus Brownii (Vig. & Horsf.) and M. amabilis 
(Gould), The writer points out that it is only young birds and 
those of weak wing-power that are arrested by such webs, and he 
expresses doubt as to the correctness of the assertion of some writers 
that birds so caught are devoured by the spiders ; he points out that 
each web is placed in position by the unerring instincts of the spider, 
simply because the situation is such as will assure abundance of 
food in the shape of insects, and that it is merely an accident when 
a bird becomes entangled in the toil. The paper concludes with a 
description of the mode of coition in the Nephile and a list of the 
previously described Australian species of the genus.—Abstract of 
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, June 26, 
1895, p. i. 
