71 



in 



31 



7* 



= 



31 



8 



^ 



29 



H 



= 



321 



268 MB. H. B. HO&G ON [ June 4, 



the margins and brown inside, are features common to all the 

 descriptions. The measurements of the largest specimen I have 

 are as follows (in millimetres) : — 



Long. Broad. 

 Cephalothorax .... 12 10 



Abdomen 13^ 11 



Superior spinnerets 10| 



Pat. & Metat. 



Coxa. Tr. & fern. tib. & tars. 



Legs 1. 5 91 9 



2. 5 91 9 



3. 4 81 81 



4. 41 91 9 

 Palpi 41 61 5 4 = 20 



.The superior tarsal claws have about 7 pectinations (in one row 

 crossing the claw). 



Tibia iv. above has 1 pair of spines in front, 2 pairs in middle 

 close together, and 1 spine on outer side between. 



Metatarsus i. has 1 pair of spines in front and 1 spine in middle 

 of underside. 



On the inner margin of the falx-sheath are about 11 irregularly 

 sized teeth, with 8 smaller in a row at the lower end intermediate 

 between the two edges. 



As is well known, Mr. White, after his description of Cteniza 

 heccops, mentions (casually in a postscript) that it has only six eyes, 

 on which statement Herr Ausserer constituted a new genus. 

 Hence arose the discussion (Pocock, loc. cit.) as to whether, on the 

 discovery that the supposed type specimen had eight eyes, the 

 generic name Hexops Auss. should or should not stand in place of 

 the later named genera. 



The eyes of this species are so particularly large and distinct, 

 that it is difficult to believe that anyone looking at it sufficiently 

 closely to describe a new species could possibly have made such a 

 mistake as that attributed to Mr. White. 



I happen to have a specimen (of P. simoni, n. sp.) with one side- 

 eye missing from the front row, without the faintest mark of its 

 ever having been there, and have had similar experience in other 

 genera. Now if Mr. White's specimen had similarly lost two 

 corresponding eyes, he may well have made the observation he did ; 

 and afterwards substituted for the type dupUcate specimens, instead 

 of the one he had pulled about and perhaps broken. In that case 

 the type specimen of Ausserer's genus would simply have been un- 

 wittingly destroyed, and when a similar one reappears the genus, 

 out of respect to its founder, can come back into our lists. Apart 

 from this there must surely be an implied authority to rectify any 

 obvious mistake, as when a name intended to be descriptive through 

 an error (or carelessness) becomes misdescriptive. 



