418 



of the eyes are the same as in that species; the cephalothorax is 

 smooth and shining, not rugose, etc. 



That A. anachoreta really is a different species from A. piceus, 

 having had so scanty materials to examine, I will not venture to 

 affirm: it is very possible that intermediate forms may exist. No 

 female with the characteristics that distinguish A. anachoreta has as 

 yet been found. Dr van Hasselt has sent me sketches of the posi- 

 tion of the eyes in two specimens, a cf ad. and Q jun., of the Aty- 

 pus which he had discovered in Holland '), and according to these 

 sketches the male belongs to A. anachoreta, but the female to A. 

 piceus, just as is the case with the two English specimens that I 

 have examined. On the other hand the rather considerable differen- 

 ces between the males of the two forms as regards the relative size 

 and position of the eyes, the nature of the surface of the cephalo- 

 thorax and the structure of the organs of copulation, seem to me to 

 tend to the conclusion, that A. anachoreta really is a separate spe- 

 cies. I ought however to mention that in the females of A. piceus 

 I have found the size and position of the eyes somewhat variable: 

 I have rarely, like Ausserer, found the centre eyes separated by an 

 interval as great as three times their radius, and sometimes the 

 greater diameter of the anterior lateral eyes is not, as usual, longer 

 than, but equal to, nay even a trifle shorter than the diameter of 

 the centre eyes. 



With respect to the synonyms of the species before us, it is 

 probable that under the "A. Sulzeri" of some authors both A. pi- 

 ceus Auss. and A. anachoreta id. are confounded. But I cannot ac- 

 cept the conclusion of Ausserek, that the south-German "variety" of 

 "A. Sulzeri" figured by C. Koch loc. cit. , fig. 1548, is an A. ana- 

 choreta. The two centre eyes in that variety are said to be somewhat 

 farther apart than in the specimens, which C. Koch states that he had 

 obtained from Switzerland, and which one would on that account 

 more readily suppose to belong to A. anachoreta. — It is not possible 

 from Sulzer's figure and description to ascertain, which of the two 

 forms he designated by the name Ar. picea: his specific name may 

 however, for the present at least, be retained for the form, to 

 which Ausserer reserved the name A. piceus. Oletera atypus Walck. 

 belongs, judging from the figure given loc. cit. by Walckenaer of 



1) See VAN Hasselt's Note on the occurence of A. Sulzeri and PJiolcus 

 opilionoides in Holland, in Verslag van de drie- en twintigste algem. Vergad. d. 

 Nederl. Entom. Vereenig. (Tijdschrift v. Entom., XII (1869), p. 25). 



