139 



Whether 7Vier. lichenis Keuss ') and Micryph. tessellutus C. 

 Koch 2 ) belong to this, or the preceding, or any other nearly allied 

 species, it seems to me impossible to decide, especially as only fe- 

 males are known of Westring's E parasitica and E. tesseUata. Menge, 

 who has employed the specific name tesseUata C. Koch for quite another 

 spider, Microneta tesseUata Menge, which is identical with Erig. 

 fusca (Blackw.) or E. simplex Westr. (see above, p. 125), can scar- 

 cely be right in this; Walckenaer 3 ) is of opinion that M. tessellatus 

 C. Koch is the male of Tapinopa longide&s (Reuss), which of course 

 is a great mistake. The spider here described by Westring may ad 

 interim keep the name E. tesseUata Westr. — Mr Westring has kindly 

 sent me a dried specimen of this spider. In the form of the cepha- 

 lothorax it agrees with Menge's figures of his Microneta gracilis A ) 

 and M. pygmata 5 ), and is very like the first of these, which, unlike 

 M. pygmcea, has easily visible and comparatively long patellar and 

 tibial bristles, as is also the case with E. tesseUata Westr. This 

 last however, as I have found by specimens of M. gracilis kindly 

 sent me by Menge, is not identical with that species. In M. gra- 

 cilis $ the eyes are very close together, and are nowhere, except 

 between the two posterior central eyes, separated by a space so great 

 as the diameter of the posterior central eyes; the distance between 

 the anterior and posterior central eyes is not greater than that be- 

 tween the two last mentioned. In E. tesseUata Westr. on the contrary 

 all the 4 posterior eyes are separated by intervals equal to an eye's 

 diameter, and the interval between the anterior and posterior central 

 eyes is considerably larger than between the two last-mentioned : the 

 area of the 4 central eyes is therefore in this species considerably longer 

 than it is broad behind: in M. gracilis the reverse is the case 6 ). 



1) Zool. Misc., Arachn., p. 234 (240), PI. XVI, fig, 6. 



2) Die Arachn., Ill, p. 86, Taf. CI, fig. 234 [233]. 



3) Hist. Nat. d. Ins. Apt., II, p. 352. 



4j Preuss. Spinn., Ill, p. 233, PI. 45, tab. 132. 



5) Ibid., p. 234, PI. 45, tab. 133. 



6) Dr Haglund has captured at Upsala a small Eric/one, which probably is 

 the male of either E. parasitica or E. tesseUata Westr.; the specimen is unfor- 

 tunately lost, but I have a short description of it, which may here find a place: 

 1 call it E. synophrys. 



Erigone synophrys N. Cephalothorax luteo-fuscus, nitidus, tenuiter nigro-mar- 

 ginatus, parte cephalica in eminentiam oblongam htimilem, sulco medio per totam 

 lougituJinem divisam, elevata, oculis mediis posticis in dorso hujus eminentiffl positis; 

 palporum pars patellaris cylindrata, multo longior quam latior, tibialis supra 

 producto et in apice dente utrinque armata; pedes fusco-testacei, articulationibus 

 clarioribus ; abdomen olivacco-fuscum. — $ ad. Long. 1—1 x l % millim. 



