282 Transactions.— Zoology. 
single tube with an outer door (of the wafer kind). One nest (fig. 6, pl. 
viii.), indeed, has a branch, but there is no inner door connected with it ; 
and from its position and character I feel little doubt that, at first, it formed 
part of the main tube, but owing to some cause or other— perhaps from 
filling or choking up—it became useless, and then the spider continued its 
nest in another direction. Ihave had an instance of this, not long since, 
in a tube of Atypus sulzeri, Bl., found in the Isle of Wight, and, more 
recently still, in several found at Bloxworth, and also others from Hamp- 
stead near London. 
It appears that the only example of the double-door branched type of nest 
observed in New Zealand was not found by Mr. Gillies himself,* but by one 
of his servants. Iam, therefore, inclined to believe that there has been a 
mistake in regard to its having been the nest belonging to one of the female 
spiders sent to me by Captain Hutton ; for all of these spiders are certainly 
identical with those found in nests of the other type identified by Mr. 
Gillies himself, and received since from Captain Hutton. In absence of 
the clearest proof to the contrary, I take it that the different types of nest 
furnish decided characters of conclusive specific value. This, at least, is 
the result of the long and careful observations made in the south of France 
by the late Mr. Moggridge, all of whose materials, both spiders and nests, 
are in my possession, and have been the subject of repeated consideration 
and examination. 
From Mr. Gillies’ remarks (l.c., p. 226), he does not appear to have 
seen any nest with a true cork-door. All those found in New Zealand, as 
yet, are evidently of the wafer-lid kind; lids of this kind vary a good deal 
in their thickness, but cannot be mistaken for a moment for the true cork- 
lid, which fits into the opening of the tube as into a Socket; while the 
wafer-lid shuts upon or over the opening ; although in some species there 
is a portion of the middle of the lid which may enter slightly into the 
orifi 
ee. 
With regard to the enlargenents in the nest, I do not think this of Specific 
* There seems to be some little confusion, however, here in Mr. Gillies’ paper. 
Compare p. 225, lines 3-9, from top of page, with p. 227, lines 4-7, and p. 260, lines 
5-10. 
From a letter received from Mr. Gillies since this paper was printed, I understand 
that the confusion alluded to was occasioned by the misprint (p. 227, line 6 from the top) 
. ofa figure 1 instead of 6. This does not, however, remove my conviction that I have 
not yet seen the spider by which the nest delineated in fig. 1, pl. viii, was constructed. 
Mr. Gillies tells me that some of the spiders captured by him were 
“peculiarly large and broad 
p. 225, and my observation on it, postea p. 983. 
