6 TERRESTRIAL CARBONIFEROUS ARACHNIDA. 



Stih-onhr 3. PLAGIOSTETHI. 



Fa in il II TiiocJULiD.i:. 



Of nils Poliochera, Sciuldm-. 

 Oithr V. ARANE.1^]. 



Suh-unln- 1. ARTHBABAGHN^. 



Famll)J AliTHK0LYC08ID,K. 



Genera Arthrolycosa, Har^^er ; Geralycosa, Ku«Ui. 

 ISiih-order 2. TETBASTIGTA {TETRAPNEU3I0NE8). 

 Family Pbotolycosid.'e. 



Genus Protolycosa, Eoemer. 

 Family Ltphistiid.*;. 



Genera Eolycosa, Kiisla ; Palaranea, Fritsch. 



Observatluiis. — Haase makes the great advance of recognising the close affinity 

 between the genera he refers to the sub-order Anthracomarti. But PoliocJiera 

 does not belong to the Opiliones, nor in my opinion can the Anthracomarti and 

 Phalangiotarbi be relegated to that order. It seems to me, moreover, that the 

 Phalangiotarbidffi and Architarljida? belong to the same ordinal group, for which I 

 adopt Haase's name Phalangiotarbi ; and this order has no near relationship with 

 the Pedipalpi of the sub-order Amblypygi. As regards the Aranese, it appears 

 to me that of all the Carboniferous forms Arthrolycosa is the most nearly allied to 

 the existing Lipliistius, and I cannot find any evidence in favour of the creation of 

 a sub-order Arthrarachnas for Arthivli/cosa and Geralijcosa ; nor does it appear to 

 me that Frotoli/cosa, Eolijcosa, and Palaranea can be referred with any certainty to 

 the Tetrapneumones, none of the existing members of which retain the terga of 

 the opisthosoma. 



6. PococK, R. 1., Geol. Mag. [4], vol. ix, PJ02, pp. 439—448, 487—493; and vol. x. 



1903, p. 408. 



Order ANTHEACOMAETI. 



Family Anthracosieonid-e. 



Genus Anthracosiro, iiuv. : A. u-oodwardi, uov. ; fritschii, uuv. 

 Family ANTHEACOMARTID/^:. 



Genus Anthracomartus, Ivarscli. 



Genus Brachypyge, Woodward : B. carhouis. Woodward ; celtica, uov. 

 Family Eopheynid^. 



Genus Eophrynus, Woodward : E. jjrestvicii, Bucklaud ; salmi, Stur ; 

 sturii, Haase. 



Genus Kreischeria, Geiuitz : K. wiedei, Geinitz. 



6. Melander, a. L., Journ. Geol. (Chicago), vol. ii, 1903, pp. 178 — 184, pis. v, vii. 



The author of this paper follows Scudder's classification, and evidently has a 

 very limited acquaintance with Arachnid morphology. He attempts a tabulation 



