128 F. Stollczka — Notes on the Indian Species of Thelyphonus. [No. 2, 



The next useful character lies in the form of the anterior part of the 

 thorax, whether it is depressed or rounded, and whether the anterior and 

 lateral eyes are connected by a ridge or not. Next in importance is the form 

 of the first abdominal shield. The length of the tarsi on the first pair of 

 feet is also tolerably constant, and so is the form of the mandibles, but these, 

 as a rule, are difficult to examine. 



All other characters relating to the form of the body have a compara- 

 tively limited value ; the single parts are very uniformly constructed in the 

 different species, and are at the same time very much liable to variation. 

 Thus the width of the abdomen is very variable, (most likely according to the 

 different sexes), and so is the length of the abdominal seta, as regards 

 number and size of the separate joints, etc. 



Turning now to the sections, distinguished by Mr. Butler, there are 

 some discrepancies to be noticed in the species referred to them by the author. 

 In the first section, with five denticles on the second joint of the cheliceres, 

 we find among others : 



T. JBrasilianus. I count in Koch's original figure of the species at 

 least seven, almost equal, denticles on the antero-interior edge. Their 

 number, it is true, is not mentioned in the description, but if Koch's figure 

 has been found to be incorrect, the correction should have been noticed. I 

 am not aware that anybody has pointed out an inaccuracy in Koch's figure. 



Gruerin's T. caudatus (in his edition of the Eegne animale) is identified 

 with T. Antillanus of Koch. This is, I think, hardly admissible. Guerin's 

 figure represents a species with comparatively shorter limbs and with the 

 third joint of the cheliceres smooth on the upper surface and much longer, 

 than a comparison of Koch's figure of T. Antillanus can bear out. The only 

 reason for the identification of the two figures is, I think, Guerin's note that 

 T, caudatus is from the Antilles, but whether that particular specimen was 

 from the Antilles is an other question. 



The identification of T. Assamensis with T. rufimanus of Lucas is 

 entirely inadmissible, as I shall point out in detail further on (see p. 134). 



T. pro5Corj92"o of Lattreille is an altogether doubtful species, and even 

 should Koch's definition of the presumed same species be adopted, there is no 

 sufficient reason for considering it as identical with T. caudatus of Lucas. I 

 shall refer to this question again in the description of T. scabrinus (see p. XWX). 



T. Ling anus. Koch's original figure gives six denticles on the second 

 joint of the cheliceres, but does not refer to that number in the text. Is the 

 figure incorrect in that respect ? 



Koch's T. rufipes is clearly not the same species as the one originally 

 described by Lucas under the same name. The cheliceres and the limbs are 

 in proportion to the body much longer in the former than in the latter ; and, 

 besides that, Koch's species has a slight central keel on the upper side of the 



