1901.] AUSTBALIAN SPIDERS. 267 



Cteniza antipodum White, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1849, p. 3. 



Hexops whitei Auss. Verb, zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, 1871, p. 155. 



Macroihele huttonii Cambr. Traus. & Proc. N. Z. Inst. vol. vi. 

 (1873) p. 200. 



Macroihele huttonii Cambr., A. T. Urqukart, ibid. vol. xxiv. 

 (1891) p. 221. 



Macroihele insignipes Simon, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1891, p. 308. 



Macroihele (or Hexops) Auss., B. I. Pocock, Ann. & Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. ser. 6, vol. xvi. (1895) p. 224. 



PorrhotheJe antipodiana Walck., E. Simon, Hist. Nat. d. Araign. 

 vol. i. (1892) p. 185. 



This species was originally described by Baron Walckenaer in 

 1837, from a specimen collected in New Zealand and brought to 

 Paris by Messrs. Quoy & Gaimard. It would appear to be fairly 

 common in New Zealand, and has certainly been the subject of 

 several descriptions since, but some so vaguely drawn as to leave 

 the characteristics of their types a matter of considerable doubt. 



The 'Erebus' and 'Terror' Expedition brought home several 

 specimens in 1847, in various stages of growth, from which 

 Mr. Adam White described two species under the names of Cteniza 

 antipodum and Cteniza hexops l'espectively. 



Fortunately the types of these (two each) are preserved in the 

 British Museum, and Mr. Pocock (Joe. cit.) has shown that they 

 are both the same. They are certainly also the same as two larger 

 specimens of mine (from Canterbury as aforesaid, p. 266). 



Baron Walckenaer's original description of his type specimen 

 of antipodiana further agrees with these. (One of the names 

 chosen by Mr. White rather suggests that he had himself a 

 suspicion that he might be dealing with this species.) 



M. Simon says that his Macrothele ins'njnipes differs from 

 M. antijiodiana, but the only difference he quotes is the differ- 

 ence in size, which goes for very little in the females ; and also 

 he says that the front row of eyes of antipodiana is recurved, 

 which I think, from reasons given above, must be taken as 

 doubtful. His very careful description applies word for word to 

 my specimens. 



Mr. Cambridge's description of his P. huttoni has no points 

 which disagree with these or by which a different species can be 

 established. 



I therefore conclude that, at least until some difference is shown 

 between til'' mules, the whole of these species with pale red or 

 orange cephalothoraz are really the same, and, moreover, the same 

 as walckenaer's type-specimen of antipodiana. 



The unusually bright colour of the cephalothoraz, with darker area 

 about the eye-space, dark line from eye-space to the thoracic Eovea, 



which is deep and round ; front middle eyes as large as side-eyes 



and less than their diameter apart ; black-Drown mandibles; black 

 or dark abdomen, with large round bronchial opercula yellow al 



