IN THE BEITISH AND COPENHAGEN MUSEUMS. 303 



Remarks. — The small female described from Bahia is completely like Balzan's 

 description as far as it goes, unimportant trivialities in the structure of the galea and 

 less slender femur of palps excepted ; certainly it would not be natural to refer the 

 described male to another species in spite of its larger size, as the differences in the 

 palps and partly the legs are of only sexual importance, especially as they are from the 

 same locality. The difference in shape and in the length of the tarsus of the first pair 

 of legs between the female from Bahia and those from La Moka «&;c. is certainly 

 great ; but as specimens are found intermediate in size and partly in length of the 

 tarsus I. (in ? from Rio Janeiro 4-4 as long as deep), and as the males from the 

 different localities are even more similar in most respects, I do not think it right to 

 establish a new species. 



A single badly preserved male, one of Ellingsen's specimens, differed in several respects 

 from the above ; the palps are much larger — tibia, for instance, 1'012 (0-483),— with the 

 tibia almost produced anteriorly {cf. PI. XXXI. fig. 28 h) and with the dorsal tubercle 

 of the trochanter much lower and of another shape ; the fingers gape moderately when 

 closed and the movable one had no spots anteriorly. On full consideration I am 

 convinced that the examined specimen must be regarded as belonging to another 

 species ; but as only one badly preserved specimen was at my disposal, I do not wish 

 to describe it as a new species, but refer to Ellingsen's description (15. pp. 167-168), 

 in which he writes " C'est avec quelque doute que j'ai rapporte cette forme au Chelifer 

 communis Balz." His identification of the specimens from Brazil with Ch. communis 

 Balz. was certainly justified, but I scarcely think that the " very small " specimens from 

 Argentine (1905, 18. p. 10) are correctly referred to the same species as the large ones 

 from Brazil. It will only be possible to settle the question of the geographical 

 distribution of these two (three ?) species and the correct limitation of Ch. communis 

 Balz. by the examination of a very large amount of material. 



This species differs from Ch. intermedins Balz., chiefly by the tibia, which has a 

 longer and more slender stalk and is at least twice as long as broad, and by the hand, 

 which is wider than deep ; the male differs besides by the somewhat triangularly shaped 

 and pointed dorsal process of the trochanter. From the following species, as well as 

 from Ch. stibovatus, sp. n., it differs by less slender palps and the movable finger, which 

 has " spots " anteriorly. 



43. Chelifer nitidus Ell. (Plate XXXI. figs. 29 a-h.) 

 1902. Ellingsen, (15) pp. 155-156. 

 1905. Ellingsen, (19) p. 324. 



Female. 



Cephalothorax &c. — The smooth cephalothorax, which is somewhat longer than v/ide, 

 with fairly distinct ocular spots, has two almost straight transverse stripes, of which the 



