599 



sub-families Uloborince and PholcincB are considered by Cambridge as 

 independent families. From the arachnological portion of 'The Zoo- 

 logical Record' for 1870, we learn that Cambridge also considers 

 G aster acantha, Miagrammopes , Stephanopis and Philodromus as the 

 types, each of a separate family. 



The admirable work of L. Kocn, 'Die Arachnideu Australiens', 

 is of great importance for the systematization of spiders; as that 

 work is however not yet completed, we shall first under the sepa- 

 rate sub-orders and families adduce the most interesting contributions 

 to the classification of spiders, which have been published in it, as 

 well as in Cambridge's highly important paper, 'On some new genera 

 and species of Araneidea\ in Ausserer's excellent treatise, 'Die Arach- 

 niden-Familie der Territelariae', and in a few other works. 



To the sub-orders acknowledged by me (Orbitelarice , Retitelarice, 

 Filigradce (fossil), Tubitelarice , Territelariae, Laterigradcc , Citigradce 

 and Saltigradce), L. Koch ') has added one, Ruditelaria , for the ge- 

 nera Thlaosoma Cambr. or Celcenia Thor. 2 ) and Cryptothele L. Koch, 

 without however indicating by what characteristics this sub-order 

 differs from the others. It has been assigned a place immedi- 

 ately after the Orbitelarice , which is no doubt right, if it be re- 

 tained; but this does not appear to me to be necessary. Both the 

 genera mentioned, which L. Koch has with good reason assumed 

 as the types of special families, appear in fact to me referable 

 to the Orbitelarice , although the animals belonging to them prob- 

 ably do not spin so-called geometrical nets 3 ). As to Thlao- 



1) Die Arachniden Australiens, p. 231. 



2) The names Tlilaosoma and Celcenia were both published in 1868 (the 

 latter not in 1863), and are therefore nearly coteraporaneous, but I think the 

 first-named has the priority. 



3) I remarked, On Eur. Spid. , p. 47, that I reckoned to the Epeiroidas all 

 those spiders "that spin regular, so-called geometrical webs", by which I meant 

 to express that I did not (like Menge for example) see any reason to distribute 

 these spiders into two or more families. As may be easily seen from pag. 71 , 

 note 1, of the work referred to, it was by no means my intention to affirm that 

 no other spiders than those that make webs of this kind, can be classed under 

 the Epeiroidse or under the Orbitelarise. I believe indeed that there does not 

 exist any spider, that spins a geometrical net and does not belong to the Or- 

 bitelaria; ; but I am fully convinced that there are Orbitelarise , perhaps even 

 Epeiroidce sensu strictissimo, which spin either no web at all or an irregular one, 

 just as there are many Ttibitelaria , that do not fabricate webs of the form cha- 

 racteristic for the typical species of that group, and many Latcrigradce and Sal- 



76 



