191 



with Pythonissa muscorum L. Koch, as I find established by the 

 comparison of Westring's type-specimen with specimens from Finn- 

 land, which Dr Koch has identified as his P. muscorum. With 

 regard to Westring's statement of the similitude in the spine-ar- 

 mature of the legs between P. lugubris Westr. and G. lucifuga, as 

 also L. Koch's remarks on the subject loc. cit., p. 14, we may refer 

 to what has been said above (p. 188) relative to the spines on the 

 legs of the last mentioned species. 



L. Koch's statements concerning the spine-armature of his P. 

 muscorum, especially as regards the spines on the tibiae of the 3 d 

 pair, correspond accurately with Westring's specimen. Nevertheless 

 that armature is variable: one of my specimens has e. g. on the 

 thighs of the 1 st pair above 1, 1 and in front 1, 1 (not only 1) 

 spines. 



The male of this species is immediately recognizable by the 

 bulbus having near its apex, on the under side, a very large for- 

 ward directed, almost S-formed hook. 



(Pag. 352.) 3. P. femoralis [= Gnaphosa bicolor (Hahn) 1831]. 



Hyn.: 1831. Drassus bicolor Hahn, Die Arachn., I, p. 123, Taf. XXXVI, fig. 94. 

 1832. „ nocturnus Sund., Sv. Spindl. Beskr., in Vet.-Akad. Handl. 



f. 1831, p. 136: Var. c (ad part). 

 1834. FlLlSTATA FEMORALIS Reuss, Zool. Misc. , Arachn., p. 201 (206), 



Taf. XIV, fig. 5. 



1839. Pythonissa tricolor C. Koch, Die Arachn., VI, p. 67, Taf. CXCVII, 



fig. 479. 



?1843. „ fuliginea id., ibid., X, p. 120, Taf. CCCLVI, fig. 834. 



1866. „ tricolor L. Koch, Die Arachn. -fam. d. Drassiden, p. 



24, Taf. I, figg. 16-18. 



1867. „ „ Ohl., Aran. d. Prov. Preuss. , p. 96. 



Westring takes up under this species with an interrogation 

 Pythonissa Jusca C. Koch (Die Arachn., VI, p. 56, Taf. CXCV, fig. 

 471), which is evidently an error, for G./usca, according to L. Koch 

 (loc. cit., p. 36), who examined the type-specimen of the species, is 

 a much larger spider, as large as smaller individuals of G. lucifuga. 

 But both C. and L. Koch appear to me to have committed an equally 

 great mistake in referring Filistata femoralis Reuss, which is com- 

 pared by Reuss to his Filistata atra, and is therefore a small species, 

 to G. fusca (C. Koch). Walckenaer (H. N. d. Ins. Apt., I, p. 613) 



