38 TERRESTRIAL CARBONIFEROUS ARACHNIDA. 



ariiiis CURCULIOIDES, l^uckhmd. 



1837. Ciirriiliiiiiirs, W. Biielvhind, Briilyvwatcr Treatise (ed. 2), vol. ii, p. 7G (in part, C. otisiirii). 



1902. Curculioiden, E. I. Pocock, Geol. Mag. [4], vol. ix, p. 439. 



1800. Gcratarhii$, S. H. Scudder, Mein. Boat. Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. iv, p. 447 (iii part, G. scabrun/). 

 1890. ? Kusfarachiie, S. H. Scudder, Mem. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. iv, p. 450. 



1903. Kuttfarachiie, A. L. Melander, Jouni. Geol. fCbicago), vol. xi, p. 181. 



The genus Cnrctih'oiiJes was based l)y Biieklaiid on two fossils in ii'oiistone 

 nodules from Coalbrook Dale, wliieh this author regarded and desci'ibed as 

 Coleopterous insects. One of these was named C (Oisticti, the other ('. ^//■cv/c/r'//. 

 The latter was suljsequently made the type of J^i>j>liri/iius by Dr. Henry Woodward, 

 who thus fixed G. aii.ificil as the type of Carciil'widcf<. In 1884 Scudder suggested 

 that G. ansficil Avas an Arachnid related to Archltni-hiis. I, on the contrary, 

 suggested that it was allied to Gri/plosfeinnni, judging solely from the figure of it 

 pu])lished by Buckland. The correctness of this surmise and the I'easons given in 

 support of it have been confirmed by specimens in Mr. Egginton's and Mr. Madeley's 

 Collections. 



That the Arachnid described by Scucjder as Geratarbiif< ^cnlmuii is closely 

 related to those that I refer to Gnrciilioiih\s is, I think, indisputable; but it is 

 equally indisputable, in my opinion, that G. ficdhrinn, belongs to a different order of 

 Arachnida from G. hicoei, which I have fixed as the type species of Grratarhiifi 

 (Geol. Mag. [5], vol. vii, p. 511, 1910). About Ktidarachne there is more room for 

 doubt on account of Scudder's statement that the opisthosoma consists of nine 

 segments, including the short two-jointed " protid^erant pygidinm." Although 

 none of the specimens I liave seen shows distinct signs of abdominal segments, the 

 one in Mr. Madeley's Collection possesses Avhat might be called a " protuberant 

 pygidium," and this process is also well exhibited in Buckland's original figiu-e. 

 Nevertheless, it would have been difficult to justify the suggestion that Kndarachnc, 

 based upon K. tennipei^, belongs here, were it not that the species described by 

 Melander as K. sulcata seems to be immistakably akin to the examples in Mr. 

 Ea'o-inton's Collection, which show the ventral side. Melander described K. snlcafd 

 as deeply punctured and as being provided with a triangular sessile pygidium of 

 two, possibly three, segments. Apart from this last character the abdomen seems 

 to shoAV no segments. It is possible, of course, that Kitslarachne tenaipes and K. 

 sulcata differ generically. Nevertheless, the measurements of the two type 

 specimens agree suspiciously closely, and both came from Mazon Creek, Illinois. I 

 suspect that one shows the dorsal, and the other the ventral view of specimens 

 belonging to the same species. 



