416 



1831. Atypus Sulzeri Hahn, Die Arachn., I, p. 117, Tab. XXXI, fig. 88. 

 1848. „ „ C. Koch, ibid., XVI, p. 72, Tab. DLXII, figg. 



1547, 1548 (salt, ad part.). 

 1859. Oletera PICEA Lucas, De la maniere de vivre, cet., de l'Olet. picea, 



in Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France , 3 Ser. , VII , 



Bull., p. CLXX. 



1870. Atypus piceus Thor., On Eur. Spid. , p. 165. 



1871. „ „ Auss., Beitr. z. Kenntn. d. Territ., p. 131 (15). 

 1871. „ Sulzeri K. Koch, Lebensweise, cet., einer central-europ. 



Wiirgspinne, Atypus Sulzeri, in Der Zool. Garten, 

 XII, p. 289, 329. 



Ausseree remarks (loc. cit., p. 133 (17)) that, if Blackwall's 

 figures are to be trusted, that author's A. Sulzeri is a different spe- 

 cies from the true A. Sulzeri or piceus, and he proposes for it, if 

 this be the case, the name A. Blackwallii. How the case really 

 stands with regard to this English species, the following considera- 

 tions will perhaps in some degree serve to show. Through the 

 kindness of the Kev. Mr Cambridge 1 have been enabled to examine 

 the full-grown English male specimen , captured by Cambridge, which 

 Blackwall mentions (p. 15), as well as a female, also taken by 

 Cambridge, which appears to be not fully developed (the abdomen in 

 this specimen is wanting). By a comparison of these English spe- 

 cimens with the type-specimen, a cT ad., of A. anachoreta Auss., 

 which Dr L. Koch had the kindness to lend me, and with some 

 specimens of A. piceus Auss., among which are a full-grown male 

 and two full-grown females, for which I have to thank Dr K Koch 

 of Frankfurt on the Main, I have found that the above-mentioned 

 A. Sulzeri Blackw. belongs to A. anachoreta Auss., whereas I can- 

 not distinguish the English female specimen from the females of A. 

 piceus Auss. In order to show this, it will perhaps be necessary to 

 give some account of the characteristics which I have found to belong 

 to the males of A. piceus and A. anachoreta; — of the latter form 

 this sex only it as yet known. 



A. piceus cf • The distance between the anterior centre eyes is 

 clearly (though in my specimen not fully l'/ 2 times) greater than 

 their diameter; the distance between them and the anterior lateral eyes 

 is almost equally great. The smaller diameter of the anterior lateral 

 eyes is less, their greater diameter greater, than the diameter of the 

 anterior centre eyes: the distances between the lateral eyes themselves, 

 and between them and the posterior centre eyes, are very small, not 

 so great as the minor axis of the posterior lateral eyes. The ce- 



