NESTS OF PSEUDOSCORPIONES. 101 
to a point identical with that reached by those of Chelifer 
(Chernes). There was here no galea; but the ducts entered 
the hard tubercle replacing that structure, and on or near the 
margin of this tubercle they opened. The number of ducts in 
each chelicera was about ten—or, according to one of the later 
papers of Bernard (19), about seven; and one may note that on 
the tubercle of O. muscorwm Leach, examined by Hansen, six 
minute openings appeared to exist. It is thus established that 
the galea and the tubercle which may replace it are correctly 
regarded as the external spmning-organs in this Order*. These 
structures bear no resemblance to one another; and no inter- 
mediate condition is known. The galea is obviously a sheath 
within which the ducts are carried forward beyond the apex of 
the finger. Its presence or absence does not appear to be asso- 
ciated with differences in the spinning or resulting tissue. 
Assuming Panctenodactyli to be the older group, it seems that 
the increasing size of the cheliceree in Hemictenodactyli may 
have rendered this projecting organ dispensable. The structures 
ave always well developed, whichever one is present, in the 
young of both sexes and in adult females; and this no doubt is 
in relation to the spinning of moulting- and brood-nests. In 
adult males they may be fully developed or degenerate. In the 
former case it will be found, I believe, that regular winter-nests 
ave spun; while in the latter case presumably the male spins but 
little or not at all after arriving at maturity. The character of 
both structures differs throughout the Order from species to 
species. Among the forms assumed by the galea the most com- 
pleated is that in which it is branched from a short stout base, 
the branches being re-branched, so that the shape of the organ 
recalls that of the antler of a stag. More usually it has a long, 
rather stout shaft, with about six small, simple branches distally. 
But it may be trifid or merely styliform. The tubercle may be 
rather high with a convex outline, or lower or longer and more 
flattened. 
- The other structures of the cheliceree, the combs, etc., have 
nothing to do with the spinning f. 
* Thorell, 1883 (11), gave prominence to spinning (and chelate appendages) in the 
name “ Chelonethi,” with which he proposed to replace “ Pseudoscorpiones.” ‘The 
spinning-openings were then supposed to be in the abdomen ; but afterwards (1890), 
with references to Croneberg and Bertkau, he remarked on the increased propriety of 
the name, observing that the creatures not only possess chelee and spin but spin with 
the chele (of the cheliceree). At the same time he proposed the name “ procursus 
textorius”” for the galea (16); and we find that Ewing (85) has already written 
** spinneret ’ for both galea and tubercle. 
+ It has been stated repeatedly that these combs—the serrula and lamina interior 
—manipulate the silk; but im reality they are not concerned in any way with the 
spinning-work, never coming into contact with the threads or with the spun-tissue. 
The mistake is attributable to Bernard (19), who converted into a direct statement 
an Ingenious but incorrect suggestion of Croneberg’s. To these structures another 
supposed silk-combing organ, said to be like the antenna of a Lamellicorn beetle, 
has been added by Shipley (80) and Warburton (81). This last is one of the inven- 
tions of Stecker (8; cf. Hansen 20); nothing like it exists in nature. The so- 
called “flagellum,” which occurs in the position indicated, is merely a row or tuft of 
peculiar bristles; it is of unknown use and certainly not connected with spinning. 
