Ctentform Spiders of Ceylon, Burmah, Le. 339 
except 1 towards base on outer side of tib. ii. Patellee with 
spines as in male. Eyes not quite so closely grouped. 
Sternum scarcely longer than broad, circular. Maxille 
broad at base (Pl. IV. fig. 9). Labium scarcely longer than 
broad, less than half the length of maxilla. 
Tarsal claws two, Claw-tuft present ; scopula present, 
but very slight. 
The male and female described by Thorell, now before me, 
are most probably (sec. Simon’s description) identical with 
L. denticulatus, Sim. As no figures of the species have been 
published, | take this opportunity of figuring it. JI am, how- 
ever, if those forms identified by Thorell as denticulatus are 
really so, not able to reconcile Simon’s reference to the 
spinulation of patella iv. In comparing denticulatus with 
Leptoctenus agalenoides, L. K., Simon regards the former 
as differing in the number of tibial spines (5 instead of 4) ; 
also in the number of spines on patella iv., two instead of 
one on each side; also in the presence of the scopula. 
The forms which Thorell has referred to denticulatus, Sim., 
certainly both male and female, have but one spine on each 
side of patella i., 1., i1., and iv. 
1888. Leptoctenus tumidulus, Sim. & “ pullus,” 15 mm. 
Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, lvi. pt. ii. p. 108. Tenas- 
serim, ‘Tavoy, Burmah. 
g.15mm., young.  Cephalothorax posticus valde con- 
vexus.”’— Oculi fere ut in L. denticulato sed area mediorum 
latius transversa et oculis lateralibus seriei 2° a mediis latius 
remotis. Clypeus oculis anticis haud latior, retro obliquus, 
Chele margine inferiore sulci quadridentato, dentibus 1 et 
2 reliquis paulo majoribus. ‘ib. antice infra 5—5 aculeatx 
(iii. reliquis longioribus). Metatarsis aculeis similibus 3—3.” 
—Tib.+ pat. iv. almost equal to carapace.— L. denticulato, 
Ki. Sim.,, affinis, differt imprimis cephalothorace postice con- 
vexiore, pedibus brevioribus, ete.”’ 
I extract the above from M. Simon’s description of this 
species for the sake of forming some idea of its generic 
affinities, though one cannot consider a description drawn 
from an immature specimen to be of much value for purposes 
of identification. One is at a loss to understand how so able 
and experienced an arachnologist should allow himself to 
base new species on immature examples. ‘There is quite 
sufficient labour already handed down to posterity in iden- 
tifying adult forms, briefly described, unaccompanied by a 
single figure, without thus increasing the confusion by mere 
descriptions of immature forms. 
