102 MR. H. W. KEW ON THE 
Vir 
There remains the enquiry how are the nests built and spun; 
that is to say, how do the animals collect and fix the extraneous 
matters of the exterior, and how do they fabricate the spun- 
tissue ? 
Godfrey’s field-work showed that the external coating was the 
first part of the work, the silk lining being produced afterwards 
and necessarily from within. This was evident from inspections 
of nests in various conditions of incompleteness; but the animals 
were not seen at work. Tio make the required investigations in 
the open was scarcely possible. It was necessary obviously to 
have captive individuals under observation ; and this in con- 
ditions favouring the undisturbed performance of their functions 
and at the same time permitting prolonged watching. Several 
naturalists, from Résel 1755 (2) onwards, have kept the animals 
in captivity ; and it has usually been found that nests were con- 
structed; but Menge alone makes mention of the animals’ 
procedure, He placed a Chelifer (Chernes) in a glass vessel and 
discovered next morning that a nest had been commenced. He 
found the animal still busy, by continued movements of the body 
somewhat like those of the spider Clubiona, increasing the thick- 
ness of the web; and he claimed from this to have seen the 
spinning. That the animal was so engaged there is no doubt ; 
but since Menge was mistaken as to the position of the spinning- 
organs it is evident that no precise observation had been made. 
The writer’s attempts to watch the animals in captivity com- 
menced in 1904; and since that time one or more species have 
usually been under observation. They were housed in small flat 
eases of cork and glass, forming cells with an area of three square 
inches and a height of from a quarter to an eighth of an inch ; 
and in these they lived in health for Jong periods. Their sur- 
roundings were made as natural as possible, and the nests they 
constructed were in most cases quite like those made in their 
natural habitats. The creatures were examined under moderate 
magnifications, the cells being placed bodily on the stage of the 
microscope. Such examinations were necessary from time to 
time; but much could be made out with no other aid than that 
afforded by a good hand-lens. The species whose nest-making 
was observed in detail were two of Panctenodactyli, Chelifer 
cyrneus lL, Koch and Chelifer latreillii Leach; and one of 
Hemictenodactyli, Obistwm muscorum Leach. 
Chelifer cyrneus LL. Koch—belonging to the subgenus Chernes, 
and eyeless—was the subject of most of the observations. It is 
a large heavily-built species; and the galea is long-shafted, 
equally developed in both sexes, and provided distally with six 
small branches *. The specimens were obtained from narrow 
* These branches are less easy to count than might besupposed. For the present 
species, Tomosvary gives four and Schtschelkanowzeff five; yet there are undoubtedly 
SIX, 
