46 The Cy^aspedosomatidse of North America. 



Packard's material was frona Alabama or Mississippi. The 

 length is given as 15 mm., from which facts if we may infer any- 

 thing it is that the species studied by Dr. Packard is likely to 

 have been different from the type of Wood. The matter is 

 further complicated by the fact that we have found two distinct 

 species in the vicinity of Washington, D. C, and three in the 

 material referred by Bollman, and probably also by McNeill, to 

 C. csesioannalata. One of these Indiana species was described 

 by McNeill, who was the first to give characters available in 

 drawing specific distinctions. 



The description was confined to the ninth leg of the male. He 

 says : " The eight * pairs of legs are modified as follows : joints 

 six, i. e., femur and tibia, and four tarsal joints united to form a 

 hook. The basal joint is slightly lengthened and curved upward 

 nearl}^ parallel to the bod}^ The tibia is compressed, and gradu- 

 ally enlarged to a point one-third its length from the distal end ; 

 from this point it is abruptly constricted so that the diameter of 

 the proximal and distal ends is about the same. The enlarge- 

 ment of the tibia is on its ventral side and ends in a tubercle 

 which does not bear a seta. The four tarsal joints (with the dis- 

 tal third of the tibia) form a semicircular hook tipped with a nor- 

 mal claw. The two proximal joints of the hook are equal in size, 

 cylindrical, leiigth equal to the diameter. The last joints are 

 conical and ver}^ small. The length of the four tarsal joints is 

 equal to the greatest diameter of the tibia. Femur and tibia are 

 white and not pilose, the hook is brown and pilose." 



If we interpret this by the light of the accompanying drawing 

 (reproduced as fig. 149), it will be seen that the ninth leg differs 

 considerably from those studied by us (cf. figures 117, 127, 140, 

 145, 162, 163, 167, 168). The number of distal joints is different,! 

 as well as the shape of the large proximal joint. What appears 

 like a small basal joint is not explained in the description quoted. 

 The description also mentions a tubercle on the tibia, but the 

 figure does not show it. One of the Indiana species, however, 

 has such a tubercle (cf. fig. 163). This suggests that the draw- 

 ing and the description may not have been made from the same 



* Not counting the genitalia. 



t This is probably to be explained by the fact that in the specimen repre- 

 sented by fig. 145 there is a somewhat oblique ridge across the last joint (cf. 

 figs. 145 and 145a). 



