1873.] F. Stoliczka — Notes on the Indian Species of Theli/phonus. 129 



abdominal segments, and on the lower side the first segment is centrally 

 grooved ; neither of these characters are mentioned by Lucas, though when 

 describing the respective parts he could hardly have overlooked these promi- 

 nent characters I consider Koch's rufipes as the ?ame which he describes 

 under the name of ^r6»5Cor;?io; for the differences which he notices as dis- 

 tinguishing the two are decidedly of no specific value. 



In the second group with two denticles on the second joint of the 

 cheliceres, Butler describes T. formosus. My specimen of evidently the 

 same species has six denticles of which, however, only two are well 

 marked. 



In the third division, including species with six well developed denticles, 

 one is referred to under the old name of T. caudatus. I shall attempt to 

 trace the history of this name when speaking of T. indicus, (n. sp.), which is 

 possibly the same species as the one referred to by Butler from Madras and 

 Bengal under the name of T. caudatus. 



In addition to the three sections, I have one species, T. Beddomei, from 

 the Anam allies, with seven denticles on the upper edge of the second joint. 

 Among the very large number of specimens of T. scahrinus, (n. sp.), I found 

 instances in which the second left joint has occasionally six denticles, while 

 the riffht one had constantly only five. This clearly shews that the 

 sections solely based upon the character, selected by Mr. Butler, can have 

 only a very limited use. 



Thus far I have commented upon Mr. Butler's determinations, but it 

 must be understood that in the above instances my observations are mainly 

 based upon descriptions and figures ; for I have no other but Indian specimens 

 for comparison. If those descriptions and figures were found to be incorrect, 

 or not reliable, the mistakes had first to be pointed out and corrected, before 

 a determination, based upon them, was admitted or rejected. 



Finally, before entering upon the specific details, I must briefly allude 

 to the geographical distribution of the genus. This distribution extends 

 from South America and the West Indies northwards to Mexico, in a 

 westerly direction through the ocean of little islands to the Philippines, 

 touching North Australia, and stretching North as far as Corea, China and 

 through the Malay Peninsula to Burma and India, where we meet with 

 most of the species in the provinces of Assam and Sikkim, more rarely 

 in Bengal and in South India, including Ceylon, all countries which have 

 a marked admixture of Malayan types. No species is known to occur 

 westward of the country alluded to, not even in Eastern Africa, as far as 

 we know at present. This distribution resembles in so many respects 

 that of the Passalid^, that I shall again return to its discussion at an 

 early opportunity. 



