No. 1.] ATTIDjE of central AMERICA. 17 



AMYOUS (c. KOCH). 



The cephalothorax is from moderately high to very high. 

 It is much higher in the males than in the females. The 

 thoracic part is wider than the cephalic, the outline usually 

 being rounded. The sides round off from the high cephalic 

 plate both behind and on the sides. The quadrangle of the 

 eyes is equally wide in front and behind or wider in front ; it 

 is one-fourth wider than long and occupies about one-half of 

 the cephalothorax — oftener more than less. The first row is 

 straight or somewhat curved, with the middle eyes large (two 

 or three times as large as the lateral), and projecting, especially 

 in the males, in which sex, moreover, the clypeus is very high, 

 often higher than the large eyes. The second row is nearer 

 the first than the third. The third row is narrower than the 

 cephalothorax at that place. 



We use Amyous rufifrons, E. Simon, as typical of this genus, 

 since we have no example of C. Koch's type, spedabilis. (PI. I, 

 figs. 1-lc.) 



Our genus Tiianattus is very close to Amycus, differing 

 only in the square look of the cephalic plate, from which the 

 sides and posterior part drop almost vertically, and in the very 

 strong curve of the first row of eyes. The relative length of the 

 legs of the males in Amycus, so far as we know, is 3142 or 1342, 

 while in our only species of Tiianattus it is 1423. Titanattu^ 

 saivus was described in Proc. Nat. Hist. Society of Wisconsin, 

 December, 1885. 



In " Die Arachniden Australiens," Dr. L. Koch describes 

 several species of Attidse which he places in the genus Amycus. 

 In referring to these species Dr. Thorell, in " Studi sui Ragni 

 Malesi e Papuani," III., p. 467, says, that they belong in the 

 genus Msevia C. K. Now C. Koch's type for the genus Msevia 

 was pencillata, which is a synonym of Attus niger, Hentz, one 

 of the commonest of our native species, and one with charac- 

 teristics so different from the Australian species under discus- 

 sion that it would be out of the question to place them in the 

 same genus. We have no specimens of Dr. L. Koch's species, 



