336 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge on the 
1893. Ctenus (an Phoneutria?) Pollii, van Hass. g,22 mm. 
Type in coll. J. R. van de Poll, Bysenburg, Utrecht. 
Tijdschr. voor Ent. xxxvi. p. 146. Hab. Sumatra 
(J. L. Kannezieter). 
&. Tot. len. 22, carap. 12, abd. 10 mm. Pedes 4, 1, 2, 3. 
Ocular quadrangle nearly square. Posterior centrals a little 
larger than anterior centrals; 2nd row a little procurved. 
“ Clypeo minimo”’—“ ventre in medio nigro, cum duabus 
seriebus longitudinalibus punctorum parvorum luteorum.’’— 
“Tarsi longe biunguiculati.”— Pars tibialis extus cum forti 
processu transverso, parumper sursum curvato, obtuso, sed ut 
videtur apice bifido; bulbi lamina oblongato-ovata, tam supra, 
ad basin, processui tibiali vicinam, quam subtus ipso bulbo, 
in medio, dente conico provisa, hoe illo multo validiore.” 
No mention is made of the spinulation, but doubtless it is 
the same as that of other species closely allied, which possess 
the characteristic rows of white spots beneath the abdomen. 
Without seeing the type, one is of course unable to say any- 
thing worthy of confidence, but I have not yet met with any 
forms from the east in which the ocular quadrangle is square 
and the anterior eyes only a little smaller than the posterior ; 
though these forms occur in the Neotropics and others 
characterized also by rows of white spots beneath the abdomen. 
Dr. van Hasselt has most kindly informed me of the 
whereabouts of the type of this species. 
6 ad. Hab. Sumatra. 
1893. Ctenus argentipes, van Hass. ¢,16 mm. Tijdschr. 
voor Ent. xxxvi. p. 148. Type in coll. J. R. van de 
Poll, Bysenburg, Utrecht. Hab. Sumatra (J. ZL. Kan- 
nezieter). 
3- Tot. len. 16, carap. 8, abd. 8 mm. Pedes 4, 1, 2, 3. 
In general appearance resembling Pollii; ocular quad- 
rangle, however, broader than long; venter similarly decorated 
with rows of white spots, but four instead of two. Fem. iii. 
and iv. “ late semiannulati vel maculati.”—“ Tibiis, preesertim 
supra, pulchre et dense sed non longe argenteo-albo pilosis (iii. 
excepto). Processus tibialis similaris, sed magis dentiformis, 
et ut videtur, non bifidus.”— Processus ad bulbi laminam 
basalis multo longior et magis incurvatus, quasi calcaratus, 
calcare hoc postrorsum versus dentem tibialem inclinato.” 
This species is evidently very similar in general appearance 
to C. Flower?, sp. n., though I am entirely unable to reconcile 
the above description of the palpal organs with those of 
Flowert (cf. Pl. 1V. fig. 25), and I have not the smallest 
doubt about the distinctness of the two species, short of actual 
a. | 
