and rare British Spiders. 239 



Dr. Thorell published the results of his examination and 

 comparison of my specimens with those of Dr. Koch and others 

 in his ' Remarks on Synonyms of European Spiders/ Upsala, 

 April 1873. Subsequently to this, as well as to the publica- 

 tion of my systematic list, a paper, written also in 1873, 

 by M. Eugene Simon, came into my hands. In this paper the 

 determination made as to the British species of Atypus is 

 widely different from that come to by Dr. Thorell — M. Simon 

 resolving Mr. Blackwall's A. Sulzeri into a species charac- 

 terized by himself under the name of A. Blackwalli, remark- 

 able for the strong excavation or impression on the inner side 

 near the base of each of the falces. 



Possessing the male of an Atypus given me by the late 

 Mr. R. Beck and quite distinct from the type of A. Sulzeri, 

 Bl., and having lately received some female examples of an 

 Atypus sent to me from the Isle of Wight by Mr. J. H. Pear- 

 son (and which seemed to me at first distinct from either 

 of the two former), as well as typical examples, both male 

 and female, of A. piceus, Sulz. (Sim.), from M. Simon 

 himself, captured at Troyes, France, I wished to obtain the 

 opinion of the latter arachnologist upon the British species in 

 my possession — the more especially as on a close comparison 

 I could discover no distinction between the type ( d 1 ) of A. 

 Sulzeri, Bl., and A. piceus, Sulz. (Sim.). M. Simon now 

 decides the two latter to be identical, and the females received 

 from the Isle of Wight to be of the same species ; while the 

 Portland female (considered by Dr. Thorell to be A. piceus, 

 Sulzer), is decided to be quite distinct by M. Simon, and pro- 

 bably the female of the male received from Mr. R. Beck. 



From the differential characters of A.piceus, Auss. (Thor.), 

 and A. anachoreta, Auss., mentioned (I. c. supra) by Dr. 

 Thorell, the former of these two spiders seems to be very 

 closely allied to the example received from Mr. R. Beck ; and 

 it is possible that the two may eventually, on comparison, be 

 proved to be identical ; in the absence, however, of a rigid 

 comparison of typical examples I do not venture now to de- 

 cide this point — preferring rather to describe the example in 

 my possession as a distinct species, at the same time differen- 

 tiating it from my type of A. Sulzeri, Bl. ( see post, p. 242), 

 and leaving it to a future opportunity to determine its syno- 

 nymic position. 



It is possible that A. piceus, Thor. & Auss., rather than A. 

 piceus, Sim., may be the true Aranea picea of Sulzer — in which 

 case Atypus piceus, Sim., and A. Sulzeri, Bl., will probably 

 become synonyms of A. anachoreta, Auss., or A. affinis, Eiehw. ; 

 the full materials, however, for this determination are not yet 



17* 



