6 TERRESTRIAL CARBONIFEROUS ARACHNIDA. 



Sub-order 3. PLAGIOSfETHI. 



Family Trogulid^s. 



Genus Poliochera, Scudder. 

 Order V. AEANEtE. 



Sub-order 1. ARTHRARAOHNJE. 

 Family AETHEOLYCOSiDiE. 



Genera Arthrolycosa, Harger ; Geralycosa, Ivusta. 

 Sub-order 2. TETBASTICTA (TETRAPNEUMONES). 

 Family PEOTOLYCosiDiE. 



Genus Protolycosa, Eoemer. 

 Family Liphistiid^:. 



Genera Eolycosa, Kusta ; Palaranea, Fritsch. 



Observations. — Haase makes the great advance of recognising the close affinity 

 between the genera he refers to the snb-order Anthracomarti. But Poliochera- 

 does not belong to the Opiliones, nor in my opinion can the Anthracomarti and 

 Phalangiotarbi be relegated to that order. It seems to me, moreover, that the 

 Phalangiotarbida? and Architarbidaj belong to the same ordinal group, for which I 

 adopt Haase's name Phalangiotarbi ; and this order has no near relationship Avith 

 the Pedipalpi of the sub-order Amblypygi. As regards the Aranea?, it appears 

 to me that of all the Carboniferous forms Arthrolycosa is the most nearly allied to 

 the existing LipMstius, and I cannot find any evidence in favour of the creation of 

 a sub-order Arthrarachnae for Arthrolycosa and Geralycosa ; nor does it appear to 

 me that Protolycosa, Eolycosa, and Palaranea can be referred with any certainty to 

 the Tetrapneumones, none of the existing members of which retain the terga of 

 the opisthosoma. 



5. Pocock, R. L, Geol. Mag. [4], vol. ix, 1902, pp. 439—448, 487—493; and vol. x. 



1903, p. 408. 



Order ANTHBACOMAETL 



Family Antheacosieonid^;. 



Genus Anthracosiro, uov. : A. woodivardi, uov. ; fritschii, nov. 

 Family Antheacomaetid,e. 



Genus Anthracomartus, Karscli. 



Genus Brachypyge, Woodward: B. carbonis, Woodward; celtica, uov. 

 Family EoPHETNiDiE. 



Genus Eophrynus, Woodward : E. prestvicii, Buckland ; salmi, Stur ; 

 sturii, Haase. 



Genus Kreischeria, Geinitz : K. wiedei, Geinitz. 



6. Melandee, A. L., Jburn. Geol. (Chicago), vol. ii, 1903, pp. 178 — 184, pis. v, vii. 



The author of this paper follows Scudder's classification, and evidently has a 

 very limited acquaintance with Arachnid morphology. He attempts a tabulation 



