382 



same species. Consequently S. sparsus Blackw. and S. terebratus 

 Cambe. are not ; as Cambridge (loc. cit.) and after him Simon ') have sup- 

 posed, the same as the to me unknown Euophnjs pratincola C. Koch 2 ). 

 Cambridge has himself had the kindness to inform me, that the state- 

 ment, on which that assumption was founded, was the result of a 

 mistake. I have also received from Cambridge a cT and 2 of his S. 

 terebratus, and from Simon an A. pubescens Sim., exactly agreeing with 

 my Swedish and German specimens of A. pubescens Westr. — As 

 regards the sexual organs of A. pubescens, see the next article, A. 

 terebratus Westr. 



Salticus scolopax Reuss, which C. Koch (Die Arachn., XIV, p. 1) 

 refers to Euophri/s striata or Yllenus festivus (C. Koch), n. , but to 

 which Reuss' description as regards the marking of the abdomen is 

 far from applying, appears to me to be nothing else than an A. 

 pubescens (Fabr.), n. Respecting Y. festivus, see the preceding species. 



Ar. Marcgravii Scop. (Ent. Cam., p. 401), which Simon, with 

 a note of interrogation, refers to this species, cannot belong to it, 

 as the abdomen is said to be "immaculatum", but is undoubtedly 

 identical with A. arcuatus (Clerck), under which it is also taken up 

 by Simon. C. Koch under his E. pubescens mentions Ar. Marcgravii 

 Schranck (Fauna Boica, III, i, p. 238); this is a very uncertain 

 synonym, though it is true that Schrank says of his Ar. pubescens, 

 which probably is the same as E. pubescens C. Koch, that it is 

 perhaps nothing else than an Ar. Marcgravii (loc. cit. , p. 239). On 

 the other hand I should think it not improbable, that Ar. trunco- 

 rum Schrank (Enum. Ins. Austr., p. 531) is, at least ad partem, to 

 be referred to this species, for the male's palpus clava is said to be 

 "subtus appendiculata"; nevertheless the "oculi 1™ paris iride lutea" 

 and "pedes primores crassi" lead to a contrary conclusion, or in- 

 dicate a confusion with some other species, perhaps A. floricola 

 (C. Koch). 



Simon considers Ar. pugnax Rossi (Fauna Etr., II, p. 135) to be 

 the same as A. pubescens, which does not appear to me probable 3 ). 



1) Eevis. d. Attidte, p. 163 (39). 



2) Die Arachn., XIV, p. 32, Tab. CCCCLXXIII, fig. 1299. 



3) The following species , which is closely allied to A. pubescens and appears 

 to be new, may here be described. 



Attus rapax N. nigricanti-fuscus , testaceo-cinereo-variatus, pedibus fusco- 

 testaceis, fusco-annulatis; cephalothoracis dorso striis duabus mediis brevibus 

 longitudinalibus , altera inter oculos, altera versus declivitatem posticam, macula 



