17 



1866. Epeira patagiata Misnge, Preuss. Spinn., I, p. 60, PI. 8, tab. 9. 



1867. ,, „ Oiilkrt, Aran. d. Prov. Preuss., p. 24. 

 1867. ,, silvicultrix id., ibid., p. 25. 



E. nauseosa C. Koch (with its variety E. munda id. ')), which 

 Blackwall supposes may belong to the preceding species (E. apoclisa 

 Blackw.), appears to me to be nothing more than a variety of E. pa- 

 tagiata, from which, according to Koch himself (Die Arachn., XI, p. 

 120) , it is difficult to distinguish it. — Prof. Ohlert has kindly sent me 

 a cT and a £ of his E. silvicultrix, which I cannot distinguish from E. 

 patagiata. E. silvicultrix C. Koch is certainly not the same as this spe- 

 cies. (Couf. Die Arachn., XI, p. 131, Tab. CCCXC, figg. 932, 933). 



(Pag. 38.) 10. E. lutea [= Epeira alsine (Walck.) 1802]. 



Syn.: 1802. Aranea alsine Walck., Faune Par., II, p. 193. 



1805. Epeira „ id., Tabl. d. Aran., p. 59. 



1837. „ lutea C. Koch. Uebers. d. Arachn. -Syst., 1, p. 3. 



1839. „ bohemica id., Die Arachn., V, p. 59, Taf. CLXI, fig. 376 



(<J; non J). 



1864. „ lutea Blackw., Spid. of Gr. Brit., II, p. 345, PI. XXV, fig.249. 



1866. „ „ Mbngb, Preuss. Spinn., I, p. 61, PI. 9, tab. 10. 



The corpus vulvae of the female, viewed from behind, discloses 

 two oblong impressions which are broader towards the apex and divided 

 by a somewhat narrow septum of uniform breadth. In the male all 

 the coxae are unarmed, and the tibiae of the second pair of legs not 

 incrassated. By these characters the species is easily distinguished 

 from e. g. E. diademata, to which E. lutea C. Koch has been erro- 

 neously referred by Walckenaer (Ids. Apt., II, p. 30). On the other 

 hand it seems to me certain that E. lutea is, as Westring suspected, 

 identical with E. alsine Walck.: at least the coloured figure of 

 E. alsine in Faune Francaise, PI. X, fig. 5 (conf. also Ins. Apt., 

 Atlas, PI. 18, fig. 5) exhibits the strongest resemblance to E. lutea It 

 is to be observed that "E. alsine* also occurs in Germany, according 

 to Walckenaer (Ins. Apt., II, p. 33); it is moreover highly improbable 

 that the widely spread "E. lutea" should not have been known to 

 that author. His determinations of the species described by Koch 



1) Blackwall has described under the name of E. munda an Epeira from 

 Brazil: see Blackw., Descr. of newly disc. Spid. capt. in Bio Janeiro, in Aim. 

 and Mag. of Nat. Hist., 3 Ser., XI, p. 33. 



3 



