802 Transactions. — Zoology. 



of trap-door spiders will depend largely on the type of nest which they 

 construct. It is therefore of much more importance than might at first 

 appear, to have full and correct descriptions of nests, and this must be my 

 apology for the somewhat minute detail which I shall now enter upon. In 

 a question where the principles of classification are still undetermined, it is 

 obviously impossible to say what is of value and what is not. It is, how- 

 ever, greatly to be regretted that, as in the case of our Jamaica nest, the 

 ingenious constructors of the nests, now about to be described, have been 

 lost, or destroyed by insects, and hence it is now impossible to connect these 

 nests with any particular species of trap-door spider. 



Nests from California. 

 No. 1 IB in. soil of red volcanic clay or loam, and there is no herbage of 

 any sort about it. The clod contains the whole nest complete and is only 

 4J inches deep, so that the nest is only that depth, and, therefore, very 

 much shorter in proportion than any of our New Zealand nests. The nest 

 (fig. 1) is slightly tortuous, but contains no enlargement, and this is 

 different also from most of our New Zealand ones. It is lined throughout with 

 a tough lining, and partakes more of the character of a pouch or sack than a 

 tube, and in this aiJ^Droaches nearer to the Jamaica nest in our own museum. 

 In shape it is oval, the short axis of the oval being across from the hinge 

 area to the front or lip of the trap-door. But it is in the shape and forma- 

 tion of the trap-door that this nest differs most essentially from our New 

 Zealand nests. It is thicker next the hinge than at the front, the relative 

 thicknesses being y% of an inch and ^L. It is thickened from the under side, 

 and not on the top or outside as in other nests, and the hinge is a continua- 

 tion of the lining of the nest (fig. 2) extended over the upper or outside 

 lining of the trap-door which is parallel with the surface ground. This is 

 important, as it goes to show that there has been no enlargement of the nest 

 from time to time. In our species, and in those described by Moggridge, 

 the thickening and tiling of the trap-dopr has evidently arisen from the 

 spider widening its hole and adding on a new and enlarged trap-door on the 

 under surface, the hinge being always attached to the new and enlarged 

 trap-door. But in this case no such process has been followed — in fact, 

 there is rather evidence of the opposite, for half-an-inch in front of the 

 mouth of the nest, the remains of part of this or of another nest is seen 

 sticking through the soil. It is i^ossible, however, that the original toj) of 

 the nest may have been removed and that this is an entu-ely new one. The 

 lid is concave on both surfaces, and the edge is bevelled so as to fit close 

 into a corresponding countersinking in the mouth of the nest like a cork or 

 plug. The hinge is unusually long and straight, being nine-tenths of an inch 

 long, whilst the extreme width of the trap-door is only one and one-tenth of 



