762 MR. F. 0. PICKARD CAMBRIDGE ON [June 16, 
In Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. xvi. p. 224, 1895, Mr. R. I. 
Pocock has already pointed out that the type specimen of Ischno- 
thele caudata, Auss., is congeneric with examples of a Spider which 
have been identified by M. Simon as MMygale guyanensis, Walck., 
from the island of St. Vincent, West Indies, these being also in 
the British Museum of Natural History, South Kensington. 
M. Simon has, however (Hist. Nat. Ar. 1892, i. p. 187 ), referred 
M. quyanensis to Karsch’s genus Thelechoris, created in 1881 for a 
Spider found in Madagascar, as though congeneric with it and with 
7'. striatipes, Sim., also from Madagascar. “The latter, M. Simon, 
on the authority of Dr. Lenz of Liibeck, now regards as identical 
with Karsch’s species 7’. rutenbergi, the type of Thelechoris. 
Whether this form is really congeneric with M. guycnensis, and 
therefore with J. caudata, Auss.,the type of Ausserer’s genus Isch- 
nothele created in 1875, I am not, of course, in a position to decide. 
But even if it were, the generic name Jschnothele has priority over 
Thelechoris, as Mr. Pocock has already remarked. 
Whether, too, the form regarded as M. guyanensis, Walck., by 
M. Simon is really the form which Walckenaer had before him, 
I am, of course, unable to say ; but from the fact that the former 
is abundant in Guyana, the isle of St. Vincent, and in North 
Brazil (sec. Simon), one would regard it as highly probable, though 
not absolutely certain on this account. 
In any case, unless M. Simon has seen the types, such an 
identification must be regarded not as Ischnothele guyanensis 
(Walck.) but as Ischnothele guyanensis (Walck.)—(Sim.), the 
brackets signifying that the form was described or referred to by 
these authors under some generic name other than Jschnothele, 
while the “— (Sim.) ” indicates that the form is not necessarily 
in reality Walckenaer’s form but M. Simon’s identification of it. 
It may be convenient enough to regard the “ first identification ” 
by an author of a form of which the type no longer exists, and the 
description and figure do not furnish conclusive evidence as to its 
identity, as correct. Such an identification, however, even though 
universally adopted for the sake of convenience, is not, on this 
account alone, of necessity the right one. 
JSCHNOTHELE SIEMENSI, n. sp. (Plate XXXYV. figs. 7, 9, 15.) 
@.18 mm. long. Type in coll. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. 1896. 
Hah. Lower Amazons, everywhere, from Paréd—Maniaos. 
@ —Colour. Carapace testaceous brown. broadly margined with 
pale rufous-yellow hairs ; mandibles black-brown. Abdomen black 
or deep brown, with acentral dorsal longitudinal rufous silver-white 
band on the posterior three-quarters; broad in front, narrowed 
behind, with four and often five short oblique branches ; spinners 
brown; veutral surface pale brown. Sternwm, coxa, and trochanter 
of legs and pedipalp testaceous brown ; the coxa of latter margined 
anteriorly with yellow. Femora and patella of legs dusky black ; 
tibia, protarsus, and tarsus dull orange-brown. 
Carapace compressed. Cephalic area slightly raised. Eye- 
